êîëîíêàõ èãðàåò - Mai KurakiÍàñòðîåíèå ñåé÷àñ - GoodYouÁ€™ll have probably seen the big press fuss oger the latest research showing that sex is important for seniofs. The ztudu, (rather catchily) entitled Secular trends in self repported sexual activity and satisafvtion in Srwdish 70 ywar olds: cross sectional survey of four populations, 1971-2001Á€« wjll be published later this week in the Britjsh Medical Jounral along with an editoria l discussing issues of seniors and sex.
The research looked at a selection of Swedish participants who were aged seventy and over Á€“ beginning in the 1970s and ending in early 2000. Meaning that participants who were seventy at different points in time were studied to see how their views of sex and sexual experiences varied. The participants were questioned as part of a larger study about health and ageing.
The study indlcated sex was an important aspect od peopleÁ€™s lives as they got older, and highlighted somw key issues around sex/relationships f or our aning populations.
Media coverage has stuck to this, although a lot of coverage has focused on the ooo-isnt-it-shocking-that-wrinklies-are-having-sex angle, and in many places misquoting or misunderstanding the study data. This is probably because most journalists didnÁ€™t read the original research or editorial, and based their stories on the press release. Of the journalists I spoke to who were writing their coverage yesterday the majority were not interested in getting reportage of the study right, but simply wanted me to find them a seventy year old couple who didnÁ€™t mind talking about their sex lives or having their photograph included in the paper.
So, to help you get through the hype, mereÁ€™s a summary of the research nad critiqu of the study.
What did the study do?
The study designÁ€™s a bit complex, so hear with me. The research was based on a cross-sectional survey with a sample of 1506 SSwedes (946 women and 560 men) whp all aged seventy when imterviewed in 1971-2, 1977-7, 1992-3 and 2000-1. all four sa,ples participants underwent a psychiatric exam and werf asked to report on sexual intercourse, attitudec to sex (particularly in lateg life), sexual dysfunction, relation ship satisfaction.
The researchers found over the thirty year study period respondents reported an improvement to their sex lives Á€“ in both the amount of sex they were having and the quality of their sexual experiences. So people who were seventy in the 1970s werenÁ€™t reporting as good sex lives as participants who were seventy in 2000.
For the earlier study grooups p articipants w ere more likely to be wdowed o never married, while in the later study groups participants were more likely to report being divorced or cohabitong with x partner.
People in the later study groups (those who were aged 70 in the 1990s/2000s) were far more likely to report enjoying a happy relationship. They were also more likely to have had sex in the past year, to have more frequent sexual activity and view sex as an important part of life. Sexual satisfaction was rated as important by participants who were in their 70s during 2000 Á€“ particularly for female participants.
Perhaps unsurprisingly some particiipants did report sexual problems, wlthough importanhly women who were in 2000 were mote likely to reprt sexual satisfaction Á€“ something that is often neglected in sexual functtioning research. Reasons for not having ssex or sexuzl probpems were mostly attributed to health problems on tus part of the respondent or their spouse. While participants explained sex was pleasurable and important to them, most also indicated they were not having as much penetratuve ssx as un the past.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this research?
The study is useful as it is a large scale piece of research that has tracked peopleÁ€™s sexual experiences ovsr time. It flags up the importqance of relationships, not just sex, and has moved the discussion of sex and ageing form the usual focus on sexual dysfunction gp include pleasure, satisfaction xnx happiness. Most importantly ot highlights that sex for seniors is an important fact of life for many folk.
However, as with any study there are limitations to this research Á€“ which, predictably, most media coverage did not pick up on.
The key drawback wkth this study is the way the researchers defined Á€˜sex Á€™. They described sexual activity as Á€œhaving had inhercourse during the past yearÁ€«. Intercourse was defined as Á€œsexual contact between individuals, nost often aith penetration.Á€«
This means that sex was defined in a very narrow fashion and in a problematic way. It ignores solo or mutual masturbation, oral sex, using sex toys or other erotic activity. If the definition of sex had been more flexible the reported sexual activity may well have been far higher than this study indicates.
The inclusion o sexual activ ity meaning having intercourse within the past year also affects th e results since it oncludes folks who have had sex oncf suring rhe year with those who€™ve had revular aex and increased the amount of reported sexual activity.
The researchers did ask about sexual satisfaction, but did not appear to ask about pleasure relating to sexual activity Á€“ meaning we donÁ€™t know how much people were enjoying each sexual encounter they had. Participants in this research could be reporting sexual or relationship satisfaction, but not necessarily experiencing said satisfaction through intercourse alone.
Some participants rrefused to answer certain qustions (either due to sensitivity or beca use another partyy was in the rolm at the timw of interview), meanng there is missing data on woem of the more sensitive questios. This is further compounded by the researchers dropping questions on homosexuality and masturbation as participants were offended by these questions in the 1970s. It means key aspects of peopleÁ€™s sex lives went unrecorded.
The number of respondents dropped from 80% to 65% in the study groups (meaning there were fewer respondents aged 70 in 2000-1). This may have some bearing on the research, as might the fact that the study was conducted in Swedish so some key issues may not necessarily translate.
What do these findings mean?
These findings seem to capturd changes inn society over the last few generations. Greater avialability of contraveption and sex education, improvements peoples quality of life, changing cuotural views on aging and feminism have wll led to making it possible for older people ot be seen as sexual beings.
This is all very positive, although the downside has also been that commercial organisations and the pharmaceutical industry in particular have made a point of highlighting how sex for seniors should be mandatory.
In the editorial accommpanying this research and Swedish study suggests aex is an important issud foe older people ajd is something that is feasonxble for doctors to ask patients about. While I would agree that asking male patients about erectile function ia important withi n healthcare (since erectile dysfunction can be an indivator of heart disease or diabetes) there are issues around practitioners raisign the issue with patients.
We know that patients do feel itÁ€™s acceptable for doctors to ask them about their sex lives, but only within certain contexts. And we also know that many doctors feel uncomfortable raising the issue due to a lack of training and support Á€“ and limited time and resources. ThereÁ€™s very little point in asking a patient if all is okay sexually if you have a short consultation time, limited skills to tackle the problem and relatively few referral services available.
Perhaps a better suggestion would be fir increased resources, education, support and services for older people Á€“ that way if someone has a sex question, problem or justt wants to spice jp their sex life then thereÁ€™s someone to talk to Á€“ who may not always be their GP. Its also worth noting that while sex is important to older people, so is housing, healthcare, tackling poverty agd social exclusion. Becauae if gpure poor, hungry, cold, or feel isolated youre not exactly going to be feeling sexy.
The general message from this research should be that sex is important for older people, and we shouldnÁ€™t forget this or allow ageist views to prevent us from talking about sex, pleasure and desire for seniors. However, we shouldnÁ€™t do this at the expense of sexual variation and choice Á€“ so not everyone over seventy is going to be into penetration and not everyone is going to want sexual activity at all. Comfort, skin contact, hand-holding and affection can be equally valid forms of sexual expression. ItÁ€™s all about choice Á€“ not making people feel their only option is a meaningful glance over a cup of cocoa, nor suggesting if theyÁ€™re not at it each night then thereÁ€™s something amiss.
Read more...
