Relationship Advice I Wish Everyone Understood: Sexual Compatibility

I’ve spent a little time sitting on the sidelines occupationally and some of that time has found me on various websites where people seek advice.  One of the more common families of issues seems to be:

I’m in a relationship/marriage and my partner doesn’t satisfy me.  I really love him/her and I want things to be better…

Which is typically followed by a long list of reasons they want to stay together—children, religious ideals, economic situation—which are usually very rational reasons to want to stay together.  This is usually not followed by a description of the partner’s qualities.  Generally, it’s the female partner who is actually seeking help.

The issue is—like my title suggests—sexual compatibility, but the problem is many people only consider it after the fact and a very long time after the social and economic commitments have been made.  In many cases, the person seeking advice admits up front their sex life with this partner was never particularly satisfying in the first place.

To be honest, because I’m a nice guy, my suggestions to them in the fora they ask usually are a combination of a medical work up (to catch any underlying health issues), mutual counseling with a professional counselor (ideally, to resolve communication issues), and to try something different sexually with their partners (to identify potential common sexual interests they haven't explored yet).

What I really want to do is ask them “What were you thinking when you committed to someone in a sexual relationship who can’t even provide you basic sexual satisfaction?”  Don’t get me wrong, I’m a realist and I know sexual satisfaction for both parties isn’t going to happen all the time, every time either party has an interest.  But regularly satisfying sex in a sexual relationship has got to be a requirement.

Why?

Oxytocin

Oxytocin is a neurohormone  which means it’s a chemical signal (hormone) released by nerve cells (neuro-), primarily in the part of the brain—the hypothalamus—that’s key to our sexual responses, many of our stress responses, and integral to the system in our brain that drives how we respond to friends, lovers, enemies, our children, and basically every other being in existence.  Oxytocin is released during sexual arousal and in higher doses (with another hormone called prolactin) with orgasm. 

What does this have to do with sexual compatibility? 

Simple, one of the effects of oxytocin is increased cooperation.

In the last few years, oxytocin has been available to researchers in a form allowing them to administer it nasally.  This has resulted in a lot of less-than-sexual research in the field of experimental economics.  To make a long story short, in controlled studies, people administered oxytocin make more cooperative economic decisions, are more likely to share, and increases empathy in males.  Also, it makes it harder for people to “remember the bad times”.

This means, if you are sexually compatible, you regularly dose each other with a chemical signal promoting sharing, forgiveness, and cooperation in a way most people will proactively seek out.  Add into it the fact prolactin—also released in high doses with partnered orgasm—produces sexual satiety so both partners tend to forgo looking for sex elsewhere, you have a reasonable starting place for a committed sexual relationship with added economic, social, and familial commitments.

However, as some people point out in advice forums:

I’ve been married (a large number of) years to my partner.  He/She was my first and we’re still going strong.  We just took the commitment seriously…

Desperation and the Learning Curve

As kids, we learn rules reasonably quickly so, by age five, we often end up arguing with little kids about rules they know well—like grammar and spelling rules—as we try to teach them the exceptions to these rules.  For example, the plurals of mouse/house and why “its” is a possessive and doesn’t have an apostrophe seem to confound many kindergartners and first graders.  After a while, we learn that most rules have exceptions and start picking up on how to make decisions including cost, benefits, and risks based less on rules and more on the underlying expectations.

Once we grasp the concept there are alternatives, but they might differ in these three qualities—cost, benefit, and risk—we often start making more responsible decisions when we have experience with each alternative.  Or, we simply emulate the people we know who’ve already made those decisions.  The reason this is important is the fact emulation is often of a lower cost and risk than gaining experience with an alternative in order to make an informed choice.  As far as a learning curve goes, it’s a strategy to “leap ahead” to a hopefully better choice. 

As a society, because many of these choices have consequences for all of us—consider the choice to follow traffic laws vs. driving 90mph through school zones—we often find ways to “incentivize” particular choices by either lowering the benefits—speed bumps—or increasing the costs—speeding tickets—in order to drive individual decision makers toward a socially beneficial ideal.

Sexual relationships are prime real estate for this.  The institution of marriage, for example, is a public announcement of an (assumed) sexually exclusive relationship that’s incentivized with social benefits in most cultures as well as increased costs for violating marriage vows and expectations.  The ideal result is a decrease of social and family disruption and the hope for a stable upbringing of socially compliant children.

Where does sexual compatibility apply to this?

Simple, when the perceived consequences (cost x risk) of a failed, socially accepted relationship is more than the level of perceived sexual frustration in the relationship, many people will take the easy way (change their perceptions) or find enough social pressure to apply to their partner to change.  

Even if this fails, the amount of emotional and social investment in their relationships creates an effect called cognitive dissonance.  With cognitive dissonance, the individual changes their own perception of their situation and often tries to “recruit” others into similar situations to validate their investment.

However, another factor may also be at work and that is developmental age. 

Humans have a very long development.  We have a delayed childhood compared to even our closest primate relatives including a long infancy providing more time for brain development and language-related ability acquisition.  We have a very long juvenile period before puberty.  We have an additional growth spurt of neurons in the part of the brain we use to learn how to (socially) solve problems and interact with others as an adult during puberty.  We have provided a long socially-mandated developmental period between biological adulthood and when they are considered—legally and socially—an adult (i.e. the “teenage years”).  We—at least the female half of the species—have a reproductive phase (pregnancy/motherhood) and post-reproductive phase (post-menopause) with the potential for yet more social roles.

In each of these stages, our “place” in society and even the same relationships changes because we change neurologically (the way we think), physiologically (the way our body functions), socially (the way we interact with each other).  In some stages—like early childhood and the period right after puberty—our behavior is much more plastic or changeable and we respond differently to our environments and partners.  During these stages, we can develop sexual traits that are much less flexible later on. 

Victims of child sexual abuse demonstrate this to an extreme in a negative manner.  Learning that sex is something done to you, against your will, and that you have to put up with it tends to change the way you deal with partners later on.  Sexually active teenagers kept blind about consequences of their sexual behaviors often become more irresponsible adults.  Sexual isolationism is probably a source for much fetishism as well when sexual learning becomes focused on what is available during this plastic period.

At the same time, if two people enter into an accepted, supportive relationship while still “pliable” and learn together, their sexual compatibility may develop as a consequence of their sexual plasticity.  With positive reinforcement and attention to their health, that can result in long term, successful, sexual relationships as well.  Probably the only way to tell the difference between the “desperation” and the “shared learning” crowds would be some measure of general health as desperation and frustration often results in health consequences related to stress.

So, what’s a guy or girl to do to avoid the problem completely?

Communication, Experience, and Honesty

Because sexual compatibility is important, sexual experience with a partner before becoming seriously committed—or a willingness to break a committed relationship after the sexual experience starts—is very important.  Obviously, reducing risk to both partners up front and avoiding situations that force some level of commitment—like pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections—are one key to this solution.

A second key aspect is avoiding “desperation decisions” based on economics or living situations.  Helping someone out of a bad situation is good.  Helping them by having them become your boyfriend/girlfriend and having them become financially dependent on you isn’t good.

Communication is also very important.  While learning isn’t as quick depending on age, communicating your desires, satisfaction, lack of satisfaction, and listening to their issues up front helps you both assess whether the relationship is working and helps you and a partner establish what works for each other.  Without direct communication, a partner is left open to assume, try to interpolate what you want, think, and feel off of less informative non-verbal cues.

Communicating clearly also keys into honesty, both with a partner and with yourself.  If you aren’t happy, you need to be honest.  If sexual satisfaction isn’t happening—and with some partners, it simply won’t—you have to be honest with yourself and not commit. 

Unless the partner is between 13 and 17 years old, don’t expect to be able to change them.  The odds are, it’s not going to happen in a way you want them to change.  This means—if you are an adult and you aren’t a criminal—don’t marry someone expecting to “fix them”.  Their flexible learning years are mostly over by the time you can legally date them.  They will change, but the trajectory is set by about 18.  If they aren’t “good enough” for you now, you need another partner.

(Note: I am not advocating sex with legally underage people.  Though a biological reality and a cultural reality in many cultures, exploiting this is illegal and considered immoral in the culture we live in and I accept that.)

Likewise, on the prospects of change, some physiological events are going to change people, but usually in ways beyond your ability to change them.  Pregnancy and menopause for women are key events.  Both of these will change how a woman sees herself, feels about herself, and what she needs emotionally.  This will change sexual compatibility.  Sometimes, in a good way, but usually just in a  different way. 

Also, trauma, illness, and even social changes can affect sexual compatibility by changing how a person—especially men in this case—see and feel about themselves.  If they are on medication or start taking medication—whether hormonal birth control, psychoactive drugs, or illegal drugs—sexual changes often follow.   Expect change, and try to adapt with a partner by focusing first on how they feel about themselves emotionally.  Don’t expect everything to always be the same.

At the end of the day, sexual compatibility can make or break relationships.  If it’s there, it’s a mutually desired activity replacing “you and me” with “we”.  If it’s not, it’s one more problem for “you and me”.  And that’s what I really wish people knew up front.

The Mobility of Wealth: An Opinion

With the freak show that is the political side of the debt ceiling debate and the desire on one side to raise taxes, I've been thinking about wealth...


Wealth is more than resources because--at a certain point--the resources you get from wealth far exceed those you can actually use. I mean, you can eat $10 in donuts if you really, really want to, but there's no way you can physically consume $100,000 in donuts before they all go bad.

And--if you did--it would probably kill you.

So, there's a point in the scale of wealthiness where wealth becomes wealth for wealth's sake or a means of competition with similarly wealthy people...

The other thing that tends to happen above a certain point, is a huge increase in mobility.

So, a "rich" person who makes $150,000 a year is probably tied to a particular address because that home and/or the workplace is the source of their wealth. Someone who's got $1.5 million a year probably has multiple addresses and--if they have the liquid funds--can literally move almost anywhere in the world.

Which is why--at the wealth-for-wealth's sake level--many taxes and legal liabilities become a matter of emotional connection with some group and not something practically enforceable. Simply having the means to pick up and leave makes it so they can change the rules for themselves by simply changing their location.

That's why places like Dubai, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and other tax-havens exist. People there get phenomenally wealthy because of the portability of wealth and the mobility of the rich.


So, taxing the hell out of people that are "rich" (i.e. non-mobile rich) can get a lot of money until such point their means of getting money goes away. For example, you tax the hell out of a Doctor, their costs go up--or try to until they hit the limits on insurance--and then they either become specialists of some sort so they can charge more or they just get out of the practice and work in some other capacity to pay off their loans.

(Yeah, MD's aren't really rich, for the most part, because of the cost of their education.)

If you try that with the mobile rich, they leave the country, hire tax lawyers, and use their money to protect their money.

Works the same way with corporations. Unless they are tied to a particular, physical location--like a mine--you're ability to tax them is solely based on their skill with the tax law and their attachment to a particular place/government/people. And the more you make that attachment painful, the more you end up with a company that--legally--exists only in a PO Box in a tax-friendly tax-haven somewhere.

All the while, leaving people screaming about the "tax loopholes" and trying to carry water with a spaghetti strainer.

If you wanted an honest fix, you have to give these people a reason--an advantage--to "be attached" to one group or one location, get them integrated and then manage the taxes so both they and the people around them profit.

But, that's just my opinion.

"Why not just cut Congressional and Presidential pay?"

That is the question a lot of friends and even family members keep suggesting as the ongoing economic crises flow through the news. 


Ignoring for a moment that the combination of Congressional and Presidential pay is a tiny drop in the bucket of the Federal budget and the fact the budget killers are entitlement programs tied to demographic problems and increased human longevity, let's entertain the possibility...


One meme in Facebook lists the current pay of these elected offices as:

Salary of the US President. ..$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents ...$180,000
Salary of House/Senate...$174,000
Salary of Speaker of the House.. .$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ $38,000
I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree... repost

The amounts seem reasonably correct, though probably don't include certain allowances required for the performance of duties.  Also, the inclusion of a serving soldier as a benchmark is a nice touch.


The idea of reducing governmental salaries of the President, former presidents, and the legislative branch, potentially to a level similar to that of a deployed US soldier, is assumed to be a good thing for the economic condition of the country.  I, however, disagree and not for partisan political reasons.


Let me explain why...


The primary purpose of elected politicians is to serve as representatives of those who elected them.  The ideal situation in a democratic form of government is one where the elected official would both act in the best interest of the electors and make the same decision the electors would make if provided the information and authority. 


One measure tied to this idea of elected official as proxy is the maintenance of a sense of connection between the official and those who elected them.  In the case of legislators, this often includes a requirement to maintain an office and/or residence in the district they were elected from.  This--functionally--requires the elected official to maintain two residences unless they happen to live within easy commuting distance of Washington, DC. This also requires transportation on a semi-regular basis between the home district/state and Washington in order to carry out their functions in both places.


A second measure towards maintaining connection is term length.  By putting the legislator in front of voters on a regular basis for election and reelection, the voters are able to make an overall assessment on the legislator's actions on their behalf.  Although arguably not a unique situation, this process--the election cycle--also adds to the fiscal and emotional costs for legislators.


Additionally, in order for voters to trust a candidate enough to vote for them in the first place, a candidate must have some sort of history--either as a legislator at a lower level or in some capacity of publicly documented political, legal, or economically relevant skill--to base an assessment upon.  This means getting elected to Congress (or the Presidency) is not an entry-level job and often requires a long vetting process to be a viable candidate.


However, these representatives are allowed a significant benefit in exchange for these costs; the power to create legislation and to exercise power over their fellow citizens in a somewhat unique scope of authority.


So, what's the problem with paying them less?


The first problem is one of motivation.  No one tries to get elected for the money; at least no politician in their right mind would suggest such a thing.  It's a reasonably high salary compared to many career professions and several times higher than that of the typical state-level legislator (or a US soldier).  The requirements to keep two residences and/or commute to Washington DC offsets some of the pay increase, however.


Motivation--in this case--is often tied to a rational assessment of the costs and benefits of the job where the motivation--ideally--is to both serve their electorate and to be recognized as a trustworthy executor of political and economic power.  The ideal motivation being a focus on service to the electorate or even the reputation (or legacy) derived from the positions.  


Cutting legislator pay essentially creates a conflict for legislators, especially those with families, by forcing their job requirements to be at odds with a stable family life and the measures suggested to remain connected with their electorate.  This creates a situation where the working conditions of the job selects for people who are more willing to sacrifice their own family stability (and potentially their constituent's) as a normal part of their decision-making process in order to continue to function in the position.


However, legislators with alternative sources of income may bypass this difficulty.  While this "relieves" the taxpayers of some of the burden to support legislators, the motivations and economic ties of well off politicians may cause other difficulties including the potential for these connections to directly influence votes against the will of the represented electorate.  In other words, these self-supporting legislators may also be more willing to support themselves and their close connections at the expense of their constituents.


One final problem is that of competition.  Given a choice, how many people would allow a medical doctor being paid $10 an hour to operate on them or a loved one?  


Most people probably would resist being treated by that surgeon because they are accustomed to getting what they pay for and a deal that looks too good to be true usually has some serious faults attached.  In this case, a question about the doctor's capabilities as most experienced, capable surgeons can command a much, much higher rate of pay.


Likewise, most politicians--like doctors--tend to be professional careerists.  They have a history in politics or a closely related field, they are respected, and they usually have other options.  Cutting the pay for elected offices simply make the jobs less competitive by increasing the personal costs and allowing other opportunities--like lobbying firms, political action committees, and non-elected executive positions--to draw off those with more talent and attachment to their families.


The people who remain and are willing to stand for office are those who have fewer options because they have been less successful, are more motivated by the unique power over others in politics--at the expense of family or money--or are different enough ideologically to ignore the expectations of others and therefore reduce the perceived stress within the position(s).


In all cases, it means those who stand for election would be less like us, more likely not to act in our best interest because of different values, and unlikely to make the same decisions we would make if provided the information and authority these politicians are provided.


Ultimately, it's not an ideal situation and no politician ever behaves in a way all of their voters approve of, but one guarantee in life is if you pay a cheap wage, you get cheap (or desperate) workers.  

Somali Pirates...

Totally honest?

The Somali pirate problem is a rate problem complicated by an unwillingness or lack of ability for ships to prevent their being taken.  One factor is the unwillingness for many international ports to tolerate the carriage of firearms aboard ships docked there.  Another is the skill and equipment requirements to successfully fight off attacks.  A third is the cost of committing a company's resources to such an effort when it's unnecessary in other locations.  If someone had the resources, they could probably solve the problem in a relatively simple way.

Basically, take 3 or 4 mother ships (and a spare) and station them in the shipping lanes outside the pirates' area of control.  The mother ships would essentially provide basic amenities and staging locations for a number of professional defense teams.  Ships transiting the pirate's area rendezvous with a mother ship, take aboard a defense team and gear, then transit the pirate zone.  On the other end, they simply rendezvous with another mother ship and deboard the team.

Within the piracy zone, the defense teams do a number of things.  They utilize high quality observational equipment and communication gear to track, identify, and report other traffic.  If another craft appears to be a threat, they report it to their mother ship and local naval assets in the area.    This way, if it's possible, the naval assets perform the primary defense.  Only if a boarding is imminent  do the defense teams engage the pirates with small arms or other means while providing recorded, secure transmissions of what occurs for use later in courts.

In this way, ships can use the service on a contractual basis, minimizing the company resources required for security in the area, as well as remain able to dock in any port.  Additionally, as long as the mother ships can be replenished and maintained in international waters, they can continue to provide long-term support.  Depending on the type of ship and the resources available, the mother ships could also act as floating support bases for aviation assets.

The combination would probably be cost effective if there was a significant reduction in captures (and ransoms) and the costs of the service was lower than the costs of capture.

For smaller, perhaps non-commercial shipping, perhaps a weapon or transmitter leasing service might also be worthwhile.

Just an idea...

Have been busy...

...with job search and taking (free) online classes on epidemiology.

For the most part, they are "continuing education" courses for public health professionals, but since I keep throwing apps at epidemiology jobs, I should probably know more.

Some of it is a bit dry, but there's a lot more to public health that's really interesting to me.  Part of it really plays with the way I think of myself.  In spite of getting a bachelor's degree in psychology, I really find myself leaning toward the biological end of the spectrum when I think about human behavior.  Add in a healthy interest in the systemic social relationships in humans as well as an interest in health and disease, you've got much of the non-technical end of epidemiology.

Sidebar into politics... A general and highly idealized way I look at political ideologies...

(Note: This was originally a FaceBook comment to a Libertarian friend's post about registering as a Republican and his friends' criticism of it as well as references to "the wrong party".)

It really depends on 1) How you much you value finances and 2) How far away they are making decisions.

Republicans/Conservatives spend money on defense and on policy that distinctly separates "us" and "them".  This doesn't mean that they try to hurt "them", but--when there's a preference, there's a difference.  A simpler way to think about it is that Republicans try break connections between the people they identify with and others with a high risk or a high cost to be associated with.

This means--if there actually is a meaningful distinction--like at the international level--it's a useful way of thinking.  Their fiscal policies are along the same lines except they tend to think of "us" as being the more contributing people and "them" as being the less-contributing people.

Democrats/Liberals, on the other hand, want to see everyone as equals.  Though idealistically noble, this is also their primary problem because this altruism makes them easy to take advantage of.  By distributing effort and resources across borders and without much reference to personal differences, they often develop policies that are expensive because people--who are often selfish--are abusing the system.
At home, in small, relatively homogeneous populations, this can be very helpful and encourage success by supporting the people who are key to our society.  At higher levels, unless the person has a definite attachment to a distinct group, you create problems.  ("Blue Dog Democrats" probably fall into the attached-category.)

Libertarians are sort of a different breed all together.  Their dividing line between "us" vs "them" becomes "me" vs. "you" vs. "them".   Where Democrats only see one set of ideal living situations and Republicans make a distinction between the in-group and the out-group, for Libertarians, there is an out-group writ large and it's okay for their to be differences between people inside the "in-group".

This is why the Libertarians have a lot of their political problems with numbers.  It's like herding cats.  Cats are--when they are mature--social creatures that create a hierarchy.  However, for the first half of their lives, they only associate with who they want to when they have to and only for as long as the other doesn't create some reason for conflict. 

This tendency does not lend itself to stand-alone success in a political system that is based on numbers and cohesiveness.  And--while it comes up with equitable--at least as far as effort invested--solutions to problems, selling them to others except where the borders of their political philosophy act, is often difficult.  In other words, guns and the Republicans, universal individual liberties and the Democrats, etc.

So, yeah, that's my take.  Pick your poison...

Odd dream...

Got a lot of money and a car in my dream--something I'm anticipating for some reason--and was downtown looking for a decent restaurant.  Only, it wasn't exactly Phoenix, Arizona.  It was a desert city on a grid and the area I was in had a lot of empty lots.  Anyway, I helped out someone that may have been homeless by giving them my pre-packed lunch.

I had stopped at a convenience store for something.  The convenience store was in an older, commercial area and was directly in front of an out-of-use commercial building, beside another which was still in use, and a large yard containing CONEX's, short sections of concrete traffic barriers, crates of this-that-and-the-other-thing, and a large number of pallets.

One thing led to another, and I found out there was a small group of them including a (putative) couple where the woman was pregnant, a guy that looked like a young Buddy Hackett, and some others.  In the process of being friendly, they raided my backpack and acquired some small bags of chips I had in there and one or two other things. 

I noticed a large, padded piece of cardboard that might be useful to them and pointed it out.  It was for packing and was probably about the area of a full-sized bed but only a few inches thick.  They pointed out it would be hard to carry around.  For some reason, I got the idea of wrapping it in plastic, tying a cord to one end, and storing it in a narrow vertical space, like between two buildings.  My thoughts were, it might be useful for a week or two.  They turned the idea down without thinking about it too much.

I was about to go when the manager of the business beside the store offered some of them some shelter in exchange for moving some of the short sections of traffic barrier inside.  I think he was primarily looking at the pregnant girl. 

The whole group sprang into action, manually manhandling the big concrete sections across the ground to the entrance of the working warehouse.  I don't know why, but I wanted to help.  I looked around for a lever and some form of skid or wheeled anything.  I found a low-slung wheeled trolley that would work, but I couldn't convince them to try and use it.  (Primarily, it was the guy that looked like Buddy Hackett.)

By this time, however, they had moved enough of them and the manager was happy.  He let in the pregnant women, another young woman, and the putative father.  Then, he closed the door and left the others outside.

Anyway, what it really got me thinking about were four things:

First, the lack of a durable social group among the homeless.  Personally, I saw them as a group when I walked up.  I expected them to function as a group.  The emotional read I got was that they were socially connected, but the end result was a complete focus on themselves and that was accepted by others.

Second, I really noticed the willingness to violate some of my expected personal boundaries and social norms.  This isn't any surprise for anyone who's had a lot of interaction with at least subsets of homeless people, but, hey!  It was my dream and my homeless people.

Third, I recognized that--at least as far as I've had real-life interactions with homeless people--and from conversations with others that have or have been homeless, they have an ongoing problem accumulating the "stuff" they need to survive and maintaining control over it.

Fourth, I contrasted them with what I learned this last semester about hunter-gatherer groups.  Both share a similar "problem"--lack of a static living situation, a very finite limit on what they can carry, and less control temporally on what resources they have available.

Then, I woke up.

My question is--and I would need to do a literature review to approach this--is how much of the homeless problem is simply the inability to form durable, interdependent social groups?

I mean, if social bonds (and social norms) are strongest between people who are the most familiar, have the ability to build reputations and reciprocal altruistic interactions, and have shared investment in mutual endeavors, could part of the homeless problem simply be a structural problem? 

Obviously, the reasons behind the breakdown of group building (or durability) could and probably are psychological--the effects of drug use on decision-making, for example, or simple mental illness--and I would need to identify or at least discriminate which group(s)/demographic(s) have this issue and why, but it's an interesting thesis.

Something to do while I wait for job offers...