Intimacy Twice a Week Reinforces Positive Attitudes between Partners

People are sexual, which is why we must resist any forms of “feminism” that seek to undermine our complete selves.

Some of the feminist activists I follow online claim that “sexless relationships” are better emotionally and somehow more equal than relationships in which sex is intertwined with the overall commitment. I’ve wondered if these women are fooling themselves, or if they are indeed asexual. I’m certain some are asexual, but what of their partners?

The Economist recently reported new findings on sex and marriage. Guess what? Sex matters to overall satisfaction in the relationship and in how a couple relate to each other.

Matrimonial harmony — Count me in
Just how important is sex to a marriage’s success?

May 7th 2016 | From the print edition

http://www.economist.com/node/21698232/print

…Around half of studies carried out into the matter suggest the answer is “no” …50% of investigations have shown the correlation that common sense would predict — namely that in matters matrimonial, sex is crucial. Lindsey Hicks of Florida State University therefore wondered if, as is the case with many things in life, it is all a question of how you ask the question.

She suspected the reason why past explorations of this subject have had mixed results is because many people want to believe their marriage is in a good state despite infrequent sex, or that frequent sex should not be important for maintaining a healthy relationship. Wanting to believe something is not, though, the same as actually believing it. So she needed a way to distinguish between the two.

Her answer was what is known as an automatic attitude test. Such tests measure instant feelings. Participants are shown an image and then presented with a word that is either positive (“wonderful”, “outstanding” or “charming”, for example) or negative (“awful”, “disturbing”, “horrible”). When they see this word they must indicate as quickly as they can, using a keyboard that measures their reaction time, whether it is positive or negative. Previous work has shown that faster reaction times to positive words and slower reaction times to negative ones suggest a participant has a positive attitude towards whatever he saw in the image. Slower reaction times to positive words and faster ones to negative words suggest the opposite.

Ms Hicks and her colleagues found that although the frequency with which couples have sex does not have much correlation with how satisfied they claim to be with their partner, it correlates well with their automatic attitudes towards one another. Those who said they had sex with their spouse two or more times a week reacted more quickly to positive words and more slowly to negative ones after seeing an image of said spouse. The opposite was true for those who had sex once a week or less. None of these effects emerged after people saw an image of themselves, or during the initial control.

Ms Hicks’s result does not mean the no-sex brigade are lying when they claim it does not signify. They may genuinely believe what they say. But it does suggest they are fooling themselves.

Some of the research I’ve read indicates that establishing an “intimacy schedule” is one way to help a relationship strengthen. Having sexual contact at least once a week is the minimum most researchers have discovered correlates with positive views of the relationship and partner. This new study cited by The Economists suggests twice weekly is more effective and might even be the minimum for couples to reinforce positive feelings and attitudes towards each other.

Ignoring the needs of your partner is a bad idea, even if you don’t share those needs. A relationship requires negotiating and recognizing the needs of both people.

As women, we’re told we’re “more than” our physical selves. That’s definitely true. But we are also sexual beings, and ignoring that aspect of ourselves puts relationships at risk.