The Components of Optimal Sexuality: A Portrait of "Great Sex"

The purpose of this investigation was to develop a useful conceptual model of optimal sexuality by identifying and describing its elements. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 key informants, i.e., 44 individuals who reported having experienced “great sex” and 20 sex therapists. Subsequently, phenomenologically-oriented content analysis was performed on interview transcripts. Eight major components were identified: being present, connection, deep sexual and erotic intimacy, extraordinary communication, interpersonal risk-taking and exploration, authenticity, vulnerability and transcendence. Clinical implications of these findings are considered, including the need for sex therapists to acquire and transmit new methods and skills. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Alvin R. Mahrer, Ph.D. for his constructive comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. Portions of this paper were presented previously at the annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Vancouver, BC, August, 2007 and at the annual meeting of the Canadian Sex Research Forum, Montreal, PQ, October, 2008. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peggy J. Kleinplatz, Ph.D., 161 Frank Street, Ottawa, ON K2P 0X4. E-mail: kleinpla@uottawa.ca 2 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (1-2) 2009 speculation in the popular presses about magnificent sex. Magazine headlines, sex manuals, etc., seem to promise that “amazing” sex is only a few moves away (Menard & Kleinplatz, 2008). Hollywood portrayals of easy, instant, wild gratification make the public wonder why they struggle to attain the kinds of sexual thrills (that seem) so readily available on-screen. Some sex therapists have theorized about optimal sexual/erotic relations but there has been precious little empirical investigation. Unfortunately, this gap in our knowledge is disadvantageous for dealing with the more prevalent problems in clinical practice. Many of our clients are referred for treatment of low desire or more commonly, sexual desire discrepancy (Metz & McCarthy, 2007; Schnarch, 1997). Quite often, we are unable to locate any diagnosable pathology in either of the individuals (e.g., Hyposexual Desire Disorder) or in the couple before us. Sometimes, clients have bought in to messages from advertising or the media which stand to profit by creating a sense of inadequacy in the public. At other times, the lack of interest may signify the sense that “something more” is within—rather than “out there”—but just out of reach. At times, clients are reluctant to settle for the existing, lacklustre sexual relations between them, sensing the potential for deeper intimacy and having wistful recollections of a “honeymoon phase”, a sense of “connection” or “passion” that they cannot seem to recapture. Such individuals may be best understood as disillusioned, disappointed and disgruntled with the state of their existing sex lives (Metz & McCarthy, 2007) and still hoping for more sexual delight, joy and gratification. In attempting to find out what kind(s) of sex would be worth wanting, I (first author) have been in the habit for over 20 years of asking my clients to describe the best or greatest sexual experiences of their lives. Inevitably, I am surprised by and learn from their replies. Their recollections often return to adolescent fumbling at times prior to ever beginning genital contact. Such replies call into question not only what “greatest sexual experiences” might mean or what would make them so but also what “sex” itself might be. Thus, the quest for a more rigorous way of understanding optimal sexual experience originates in clinical necessity, to help individuals and couples find more of what they intuit is possible, in addition to an academic interest in filling a gap in the literature. “Great sex” as depicted in popular culture Popular culture sources tend to equate sex with intercourse, reinforce sexual stereotypes, send mixed messages that leave room for unrealistic expectations, anxiety, shame and guilt; they also marginalize most people who do not fit into the narrow spectrum of sexuality portrayed (Andsager & Roe, 2003; Duran & Prusank, 1997; Krassas, Blauwkamp & Wesselink, 2001, 2003; Menard & Kleinplatz, 2008; Zilbergeld, 1999). There are thousands of sexual self-help books (in regular or bastardized “Tantric” flavours) whose titles guarantee the purchaser “great sex” or “sexual ecstasy”. In most cases, the emphasis of such books is on performance, technique, novelty, spontaneity and incredible orgasms as the route to great sex. “Good” sex and “satisfying” sex Empirical information on the nature and characteristics of “good” (but not optimal) sexuality is available but sparse (e.g., Barbach & Levine, 1980; Hutton, 1994). The literature on sexual satisfaction, though far more extensive than the literature on good or optimal sexuality, is limited by a narrow focus. Questionnaires designed to measure sexual satisfaction tend to focus on “normal” sexual functioning as defined in Masters and Johnson’s (1966) model of the Human Sexual Response Cycle (Arrington, Cofrancesco & Wu, 2004). Some measures (e.g., Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction; Rust & Golombok, 1985) define sexual satisfaction, in part, by the absence of sexual dysfunctions and/or factors such as non-sensuality and non-communication. This illustrates the tendency of researchers in the area to dichotomize sexual functioning into abnormal and normal without regard to a potentially broader spectrum. What is optimal sexuality? What does optimal sex look like? A few clinicians offer some descriptions of it. Authors use different words to describe their conceptions of presumably similar phenomena: “Sexual ecstasy” (Broder & Goldman, 2004; Ogden, 1999, 2006), “great sex” (Castleman, 2004; Heumann & Campbell, 2004), 3 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18 (1-2) 2009 “eroticism” (Kleinplatz, 1992, 1996a, 1996b; Livia, 1995; Schnarch, 1991, 1997) and “spectacular sex” (Sprinkle, 2005). The uniqueness of each individual’s sexuality is stressed along with the subjective nature of sexual preferences and desires (Broder & Goldman, 2004; Castleman, 2004; Kleinplatz, 1996b; McCarthy, 2003; Metz & McCarthy, 2007; Schnarch, 1991, 1997; Zilbergeld, 2004). In 2005, we began to investigate the components of optimal sexuality. The purpose of the first phase of this research was to gain initial impressions of what optimal sexuality looked like from interviews with key informants. The initial findings after collecting data from the first 30 interviews revealed 6 components of optimal sexuality (Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007). In this follow-up study, we reveal the subsequent, more comprehensive findings based on a total of 64 interviews on optimal sexuality to date. The goals of this research are to develop an empirically-based, conceptual model of optimal sexuality; to learn from key informants, who self-identify as having experienced “great sex” what optimal sexuality means in practice; and to flesh out the model under development by interviewing clinicians, i.e., sex therapists. It is hoped that this model will counter the prevailing sexual myths and offer a more complete view of the spectrum of sexuality. An empirically-based, clinically relevant model of optimal sexuality could open up new vistas for some individuals/clients seeking to improve the quality of their sexual interactions, while demystifying “great sex” for others. This model may inform the way clinicians view human erotic potentials and expand our understanding of what sex can be. Having this knowledge in hand, clinicians may be better able to develop the tools necessary to accompany their clients on their paths towards optimal sexuality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.