this kinsey-esque approach to sex, viewing it purely as something physical and abstracted from our overall humanity, that could be measured and described with metrics and diagrams is completely absurd. this is the high watermark for a reductionist society obsessed with dry diagrams and economic modelling.

it completely misses out the beauty of being truly close to another person, and being able to explore one another's bodies without boundaries. the way different kinds of touching benefit different people in the context of whatever kind of connection they have is very personal and particular.

have you not heard of a little word known as 'intimacy'. maybe the reason married people are so happy, before and after, is becuase they are able to forge intimate connections, both platonic and sexual, and they are the kind of people who can make a committed monogamous relationship work.

only a lonely clutching product of todays hyper consumerist society, where everything including sex is disembodied from its context, could really suggest such a study.

be it the thrill of sudden closeness with someone new and strangely familiar, or someone you love and share your life with, the happiness brought into life by sex has to do with more than the angle of penetration. its the whole package.

oh yeah, and seventies swingers parties weren't all that!

I'm usually considered to be a relatively intelligent woman, I'm not used to 'just not getting it' when intelligent people put their view across, so this article and most of the subsequent posts have me very intrigued indeed.

On the one hand, perhaps (hopefully) the article was seriously tongue in cheek, somehow taking a jab at someone or something or other and the majority of the male posters are 'in on' the 'in joke'.

On the other hand, the author and some of the subsequent posters are really of the belief that sex equates to happiness!! Astounding if in fact this is the case.

On the other, most likely hand, (sometimes 3 hands are handy) it's an amalgamation of the first 2 options... a juvenille male perception (that some men manage to grow out of) that sex equates to happiness, (the more the better) coupled with the maturity to understand that this is not a generally accepted view and so therefore 'candy-coat' it in OTT locker-room innuendo to allow those who disagree to see it as a joke and those who agree to feel supported.

My experience as a pretty promiscuous young woman was that sex was lots of fun and provided a decent distraction from unhappiness even when it wasn't satisfying or decent enough to actually make me happy. Then I met my first husband...

Sex had never been anything like that before... it was an out-of-body experience... perfect. Unfortunately the rest of the relationship was a train wreck. When we divorced I found the few attempts at casual sex subsequently to be boring and somehow a little irritating. Definately no cause of happiness.

Now in my relationship with my new husband it is the relationship that provides the happiness and sex is the icing.

Sex and Happiness are NOT mutually inclusive. Nor are they mutually exclusive. The only conclusion therefore must be that whilst sex is not necessarily a cause of unhappiness it is certainly not the primary cause of happiness no matter what sort of relationship one is or isn't in.

Oh, and just to take the conversation out of the locker room and put it into a perspective that is perhaps somewhat more universal, I'd like to add my own thoughts on happiness and the causes of happiness.

I don't think happiness is a goal that is achieved, it is merely an experience. It's not meant to be everlasting, in fact the aspiration for happiness is what keeps us ticking, keeps us striving for new and better ways to exist.

I think happiness is experienced in many different forms, one of which (for some) is apparently having multiple, guilt-free, extra-marital relationships. I think that contentment is the goal, but that as soon as it's achieved we bore with it and 'create' other issues that we're discontented with. Ala Deep Purple: "It's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase"

I believe that as humans, we have a biological imperative to strive, to change, to improve... not only ourselves but the world around us. It is exactly this dissatisfaction with our current state of affairs that inspires such creative processes as to distinguish us from other animals in this matter. Dinosaurs didn't look at wooly mammoths and think... "OOO they must be warm in their fur coats... what if I took that off them and wore it myself, then I'd be warm too", but I bet they got lots of sex with lots of different partners before their lack of imagination bumped them out of existence.

Humans have always been looking for ways to get what we want and get rid of what we don't want. This seems to simultaneously be an urge toward happiness and the cause of constant dissatisfaction for us, interestingly one that seems to have no end.

Obviously there are documented medical, psychological, environmental etc. etc. causes for UNHAPPINESS, my feeling is that is much simpler to pinpoint these than it is to pinpoint the medical, psychological and environmental etc. etc. causes for HAPPINESS. Any attempt to do so seems fraught with conclusions such as were stunningly outlined in the lead article to this discussion.

Dear Dancing..Edge

Well thanks for coming late to school. It would appear us "naughty boys" have been caught by matron in the locker room.

Note that most prominent commentators on sexual matters are female (eg Bettina Arnt).

Furthermore "Cleo" and "Cosmopolitan" discuss female orgasm and sexual positions constantly and without social stigma. They are not considered pornographic because their target audience is not male.

This reflects a sexist prejudice that when men talk about sex they are automatically reducing a serious topic to the locker room.

Now just because some men on this string (eg me) have been directly addressing the issue of sex does not mean that we "equate happiness with sex".

To me sex is very important (thats my right) but it is just one component of happiness.

The fact that you wished to focus on happiness does not mean that you can denigrate those who have taken the opportunity to focus on sex.

I may be wrong but I think as people get older and have had a relationship with a partner for several years the magic of sex may, to a degree, diminish. It is probably stating the obvioous to say that one's immediate circumstances influence one's value judgements.

Regards

Peter

Maybe the 'problem' Plantagenat, is that in the past women have been told to 'lie back and think of England', or indeed that many men have been scared of women finding their sexual, and sensual, potential that they have actively worked against women having knowledge of mutually rewarding sexuality.

I personally grew out of comparing sexual abilities with my mates some time around 1975, before I had actually had sex.

Sex is not something to boast about, to compare or to value yourself by.

Sex can contribute to happiness, but I also firmly believe that happiness isn't everything. My views hark back to those expressed by Kahlil Gibran:

Then a woman said, "Speak to us of Joy and Sorrow."

And he answered:

Your joy is your sorrow unmasked.

And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears.

And how else can it be?

The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain.

Is not the cup that hold your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter's oven?

And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives?

When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy.

When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.

Some of you say, "Joy is greater than sorrow," and others say, "Nay, sorrow is the greater."

But I say unto you, they are inseparable.

Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.

Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.

Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.

When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall

Hamlet

What you say in your first paragraph rings true. Sex has been treated as a base and naughty instinct of men - something women have to endure.

That was the case until the 1970s in Australia. This may explain why this attitude appears to be prevalent in people who reached their sexual peak (or fixed their views) in the 1960s.

I don't know if the repression of sexual discussion or knowledge is mainly due to men. Rather there seems to be a sheer nervousness or oddness in parents talking about it honestly and patiently to their preteens or teens. This is a shame because kids (especially girls) often learn the hard way from more knowledgeable or manipulating kids. Of course there is little or no data to support the above comments just anecdotal snippets picked up by this sensitive soul.

I'll tell you a little secret, just between you and me. I don't compare my performance with other men because almost all men from their 30s onward are cautioned that such discussion is chauvinistic or lewd so they no longer talk.

Meanwhile the many woman I've chatted to on this issue say that they openly chat about sex with their female friends in a casual and relaxed way. I suspect men don't want to get into any area where any hint of inadequacy my crop up.

On boasting I'm just telling how it is. Nobody else let on in such detail on this string so my comments stuck out.

We're anonymous here. Why don't people talk more explicitly about a key issue of life. I had confidence that if my posts were in context and not lewd Graham wouldn't censor them (he didn't)