Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

Sexual Intercourse: Let’s All Be Brief and Average

By Sue Katz, Consenting Adult. Posted April 16, 2008.


Why does the media stick to an outdated, offensive and boring definition of sex?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sue Katz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

The Associated Press, under the headline "Sex Takes 3 to 13 Minutes," has given the world a sneak-peek at the science of quickies. A study to be published next month in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, based on a survey of sex therapists, concluded that the "optimal amount of time for sexual intercourse was 3 to 13 minutes."

I scratched my head on that one, until I read that "the time does not include foreplay." And then the bulb went on. Well, two bulbs went on. First, why are they using those tired, narrow definitions of "sex" and "foreplay" -- as if they were separate activities? And second, what if "intercourse" isn't in your sexual vocabulary, although you're having fabulous erotic experiences? Or if your idea of intercourse involves neither a penis nor a vagina?

What's sex?

This conflation of "sex" and "sexual intercourse" is as outdated an idea as the prohibition on wearing white shoes after Labor Day or the belief that birth control causes promiscuity. Let's get real.

Penetration is one of many sexual activities. Others are oral sex, nipple pinching, butt squeezing, clit rubbing, ball tickling, breast binding, toe sucking and, did I say clit rubbing? The actions that constitute "sex" -- undistinguished from "foreplay" -- are as varied as the people who do them.

If a couple has kissed and touched and teased and stroked and sucked until both of them are totally satiated -- but they haven't screwed -- is that not sex? If someone has a fetish -- say they are wild about stockings -- and they get off humping the silk-encased thigh of their partner -- is that not sex?

What's intercourse?

Intercourse isn't right for everyone and isn't required for reaching an ecstatic orgasm. Sometimes you want penetration and luckily there are a number of possible spots to penetrate with a number of body parts -- from fingers to tongue to penis -- and non-body parts -- from dildos to ben-wa balls to fruit.

But the AP report on this study seems to be all about heterosexual penile/vaginal intercourse and even that is very limited and limiting. Not only do people feel varied levels of enthusiasm about such sexual intercourse at various times of their lives (or months), some people cannot perform that particular activity at all. There are plenty of reasons for this, including the thinning of the vaginal walls with age, medications that prevent strong erections, a personal safer sex guideline or simply no inclination for copulation.

Don't gay and lesbian people have sex? Do their activities fit this definition of "sexual intercourse"? And the woman who drizzles lubricant in her cleavage and then presses her breasts together as her male lover pumps, is that intercourse? Does anal sex constitute intercourse? What about fisting?

The article's general thrust is that you shouldn't feel bad about having such short-lived sex, since it appears to be the norm. In fact, the piece includes a promise that this study will "ease the minds" of those worried about the stopwatch. In support of low expectations, Marianne Brandon, a clinical psychologist, is quoted as saying, "There are so many myths in our culture of what other people are doing sexually. Most people's sex lives are not as exciting as other people think they are."

Perhaps if the sex therapists encouraged the broadest exploration of pleasure, we wouldn't have to resort to measuring such a narrow notion of sex. Separating "foreplay" from "sex" is as logical as separating tea from water. It's in the mix that we find the thrill and satisfaction.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: lesbians, gays, media, sex

Sue Katz has published journalism on the three continents where she has lived; her topics range from Middle East peace movements to the impact of aging on sexuality. Visit her blog at www.suekatz.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
General Thrust
Posted by: Russ Wellen on Apr 16, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're certainly right, Ms. Katz. On the other hand, anything that alleviates male anxiety about lacking the "staying power" of the next guy can't be all bad.

Decreased anxiety might even lead to an increase in his ability to delay orgasm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good morning, General Thrust Posted by: mainspark
Both
Posted by: StoneRiley on Apr 17, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're asking: Decreased anxiety might enable a man to delay whose orgasm?

And the obvious answer is: Both partners.

Guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you maybe suggesting that delaying a woman's orgasm is a bad thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Both Posted by: mainspark
» Oh Posted by: StoneRiley
penetration to orgasm is the male model
Posted by: Teresa on Apr 17, 2008 6:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Katz has it right. This AP report is shoddy "science" pretending to be nongendered, like studies in evolutionary psychology. When you frame the sexual experience as beginning with penetration and ending with orgasm, you're talking about the male experience only. Nearly every study for the last 20 years has shown women's sexual preferences and pleasure does not fit into this framework. Even the word "foreplay" is a bias toward male perception, since for women, "foreplay" is often the main event -- the one they enjoy the most. From a woman's POV, "sex" that lasts all of 13 minutes is pretty lousy and insulting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: penetration to orgasm is the male model Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» been listening to leykis? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 18, 2008 2:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, we will


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Were you trying to spell Tantric Posted by: hurricane hugo
Do people actually care about this?
Posted by: mercianomad on Apr 18, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm amazed that anyone could possibly get up in arms about the ridiculous semantic soapboxing this article represents. "Oh no, they didn't include lesbians and gays! Oh no, they separated penis-vaginal intercourse from all other forms of sex! What *is* the definition of 'sex' anyway? I'm so offended!"

Good god, people: Find something worthwhile to bitch about. This is pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes Posted by: ruscle
» RE: Yes Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Yes Posted by: Jordonquits
There is definately a clear difference between sex and foreplay
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Apr 18, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Foreplay is when you are trying to get yourself and your partner fully turned on. Sex is when you are trying to get yourself and your partner off.

But I wouldnt define sex as penetration. I would define it as anything that consumes massive amounts of energy dedicated towards getting off. So in a sense, foreplay is like charging, and sex is like discharging.

Of course there are people who have sex without actually consuming much energy. I dont know what to say to them...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

here's my thing
Posted by: dsmidiman on Apr 18, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a 53 year old man who spent the better part of my 20's traveling the US playing in a band (one of those rock star wannabes) At the risk of sounding egotistical I have to say that I never had any problems getting dates with women.

In my late 20's I met a lady in CA that I eventually married and was faithfully married to for 24 years raising two daughters. I've been divorced and back in the dating thing going on 5 years now.

My point is that I have a lot of experience on both sides of the fence when it comes to dating and relationships with women. Some of my experiences have been beautiful caring ones and some have not. The one common denominator that has been prevelant to different degrees of intensity has been the fact that women percieve the act of having sex with a man as a "giving" or "giving up" for the man kind of thing and view the act of a man having sex with a woman as a "taking" from the woman kind of thing. Again there are different degrees of intensity to this meaning that some women really use sex to try and manipulate the man they are with and some don't go to that extreme but there is always an underlying consensus that the woman is doing the giving and the man is doing the taking.

Sex (in any shape or form) is suppose to be the most intimate way possible of physically expressing one's feelings between two people. The "giving up", vunerability and all the other emotions that come with having sex is something that is experienced by both the man and the woman. Yet it is more often than not viewed as the woman giving and the man taking kind of thing.

This is sad to me because I think that most of us (men and women) want the same thing when it comes to the physical part of a relationship. Which is that warm fuzziness that comes with a wide array of feelings (acceptance, desire, unconditional love and closeness etc.) when there is a true connection.

When one partner feels like they are doing the giving and the other is doing the taking it opens up a world of complications in the rest of the relationship. No woman wants to feel like she is being "used" and no man that I know wants to feel like he is selfishly taking something from a woman or somehow burdening the woman in any way with having to have sex with him. The pariculars about the sex (what kind of sex, how often etc.) is different for everybody. It is the connection, the total acceptance, security and unconditional love that is what makes sex such a beautiful thing. Sadly, more often than not this is not the case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: here's my thing Posted by: JerseyGuy
» RE: here's my thing Posted by: Doubtom
» Lovely post (dsmidiman)! Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: here's my thing Posted by: fork
Go for it
Posted by: BST on Apr 18, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexy sex: Whatever floats your boat and doesn't force others against their will.

Alone I can moan,
Or with you,
Or with two,
Something old
Or something new.

We have loads of choices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What about sex without a partner? Posted by: flapdoodle
this may be the best forum for my question
Posted by: e rice on Apr 18, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why the flaming hell is it 'penetration'?

once the hymen is gone, and for any other act, the accurate word is 'insertion'.

so, why penetration? what does that choice of word reveal about men's attitudes toward their actions.

penetration goes through something by destroying part of it.

so, again, why is it always 'penetration' and never 'insertion'?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GREAT SEX: One benefit of monogamous relationships.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 18, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based on my many years as an airline pilot, during which I heard thousands of sex exploits related in the cockpit by other crewmembers, I came to the conclusion that men and women in monogamous relationships have the best sex of all. It's one reason why divorced people get married again rather than live alone.

Long-term partners can have it all -- quickies, extended foreplay, super-slow intercourse, etc., etc.
Yet, curiously to me, the article failed to mention the importance of relationships in one of the most enjoyable human activities there is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GREAT SEX: One benefit of monogamous relationships. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: GREAT SEX: One benefit of monogamous relationships. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
This is a sex education article
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 18, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't view this in Kansas!

While it's true that almost all people will figure out sex without any help at all, it's also true that a broad-based (er) sexual education leads to happier sex, fewer fights about sex, fewer unwanted pregnancies, probably more wanted pregnancies too, all sorts of nice things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Narrow to pathetic
Posted by: Belegandir on Apr 18, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iam a firm believer of the other zones pleasure. But 3 13 minutes of intercourse! please. did it state whether these couples were healthy and what age. Im 24, my lover and I have had sex not including foreplay for about 1 and a half straight . Sure at periods we do it al a Tina Turner [Nice and easy, mean and fast] and thats when hes double shifted as a loader for UPS. I wonder how this study was undertaken being that the physical experiences I have had have, and others I know gone past the 13 minute mark, again and again. I wonder if this is for white middle aged republicans that this is tue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few thoughts about distinctions
Posted by: obliu222 on Apr 18, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Intercourse is just a cumbersome way of saying 'interaction' in a more spiritual/physical sense. Such as 'their intercourse concerning politics' to connote something of the Sufi term "sohbet" or "spiritual discussion or conversation". It is supposed to connote refinement and therefore it's pretty understandable why some people prefer to apply it to the arguably undignified realm of sexuality. However in the sense of distinction in which it is being used, it seems to me to be doing double-duty for the relatively connotatively vulgar term "copulation", a favorite verb of Samuel Beckett, both terse and suggestive. Also, in the strictly mechanical sense, 'copulating' takes between 2-4 minutes of active thrusting which is fairly well-accepted in sex therapy and other academic circles. This 3-13 minute window must be based on less objective criteria.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Three minutes....
Posted by: morticia on Apr 18, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....would be a marathon for teenagers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'sex'
Posted by: Cybershaman on Apr 18, 2008 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I said upthread, this study is only for Republicans. They seem to be the ones who can't distinguish between foreplay and sex. Remember how frantic they were to label Monica's power groupie antics 'SEX' so they could use it against the Clintons? Let the Viagra crowd have their '13 minutes', *snicker snicker*, they deserve it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 'sex' Posted by: wwittman
Senator Obama, have you ever had an orgasim while
Posted by: mcartri on Apr 18, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bowling a 37 and drinking orange juice at the same time? If only ABC News had been able to squeeze in that question for their "Debate".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drug-enhanced sex is just wrong, wrong, wrong...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 18, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but as every uptight Republican knows, there's nothing quite as exciting as misbehaving, especially when combined with sex - thus you end up with Larry Craig and Bob Allen in the men's room, David Vitter and Karl Rove wearing diapers and being flogged by she-male prostitutes . . . please, can't you keep that in private where it doesn't really belong either? No need to spray it all over the front page, is there? Right next to the latest celebrity crotch shot?

Yes - this is a sex-obsessed culture with a strong Puritan streak to go with it - like stepping on the accelerator and the brake at the same time, sooner or later something snaps - let's just hope it's not something you'd miss, like a heart aorta valve, say.

Let's take Viagra. Yes, Viagra, as sold to the public by ex-presidential candidate Dole, with the aid of Britney Spears...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt8uNG02ixA

OK, just kidding, it was a Pepsi ad - but it would have made a good Viagra ad, wouldn't it? When Dole says "Down, boy!", he could instead say "Boy, it just won't stay down!"

Viagra actually works the same way cocaine does, and cocaine, just like Viagra, gives the male partner in the "sex act" the benefit of "extended erectile function," just as Viagra does.

These results show potentially dangerous recreational use of sildenafil in combination with other drugs. The combination with amyl nitrate is particularly worrying as both drugs dilate blood vessels, which can result in a dangerous drop in blood pressure and possibly myocardial infarction or stroke.

Within weeks of being licensed sildenafil was available in English night clubs, which shows the willingness of women and men to experiment with drugs. Our findings also provide further evidence for the normalisation of recreational drug use in Britain.


Or, if you find the notion of drug-assisted sex unappealing, they say there are Jedi Mind Tricks that accomplish the same thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First time
Posted by: fdgsr on Apr 18, 2008 7:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that the first experience of pleasurable sexual stimulation that leads to orgasm for the male is the fixation object or event. More intelligent and thinking individuals can understand the connection between sex and procreation as the biological necessity for effective sex. So, even if masturbation or another form of stimulation was the first, they can perform the act of impregnation and perpetuate the species. Beyond that are all manner of ways to exploit the sexual urge and response for pleasure. The religious authorities have scribed, the medical profession has prescribed, the press has proscribed, and porn magazines and internet sites subscribe. People form, perform, and reform. Not all functions were originally associated with the biologic function they enhance. Tasting is associated with food and nutrition, music is associated with communication by hearing, textures are pleasurable though touch has another function. Odors can be pleasant, warning, offensive, or attractive. I place such 'science' as the average range of the time taken for male orgasm to be in the category of high school science class projects. They can teach scientific method without touching scientific results. Why is this interesting?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'M 69 YEARS OLD. YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE WRITING THE HISTORY
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Apr 18, 2008 10:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of the Clinton administration. How are you going to describe Bill and Monica? Was Bill saying that they didn't have intercourse? Was Bill saying that they didn't have "sex", whatever that means?

Or just as importantly, are you guys going to say that the whole thing was irrelevant. How do you think that history is going to be written?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems
Posted by: talkville on Apr 19, 2008 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the best sexual intercourse develops from the best social intercourse which develops within just, equitable, dignified and fulfilling human relations which, of course, are nowhere evident in this current hierarchic corporate state known as the USA.

If one were to put flesh on that "average" human being in our current society, all that could be done is to recoil in dismay. Now all those guys and gals on MTV, the Food Channel, the Travel Channel, the interminable commercials and all sitcoms and programs on tv? Well they are down-right happy and satisfied, and jumping from bed to bed to couch in such ecstatic and fulfilling intercourse.

I want to be a digital image or pixels; that would solve my short-comings and errancies all in one swoop. Does that count in re-incarnation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not intended to be The Complete Guide to Sex
Posted by: JesseBC on Apr 19, 2008 7:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While perhaps not as inclusive as has come to be expected, I still thought the audience and meaning of the original was pretty clear.

It was addressed at het couples who, for years now, have been hearing that the Key to Great Sex! (tm) involves going at it for 12 hours in 8 different positions.

This was just pointing out that, no, plenty of hets get off on a minimum of humping-and-pumping.

Really, every reference to penis-vag intercourse isn't some attempt to exclude or deny all the sexual positions/fetishes/preferences/expressions in existence.

It was just a counterpoint to a fad in heterosexual self-help. It wasn't intended to be The Complete Guide to Sex.

Personally, I found it refreshing. Banging for hours makes the cooter sore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]