Let's talk about sex
So, let's do just what the title of this blog suggests. Let’s talk about sex. It’s a good Friday topic after all.
(Besides which, if I have to have that song stuck in my head, so should you.)
It's not just a random ramble. I actually have something to write about on the subject because yesterday, my colleague sent me a link that is both entirely safe for work and had me consumed with unholy mirth.
According to Salon.com, researchers in Turkey have studied the relation between sexual performance and body mass index in men, and the answer may not be what you were expecting. That is to say, if you had given it much thought, which I really hadn’t. Until I read the article.
Apparently the heavier blokes, those with a little excess body fat, came out the winners.
"In fact, heavier men were able to make love for an average of 7.3 minutes, while slender men could count themselves lucky if they held on for a mere 108 seconds."
And according to the same scientists the news only gets worse for the slimmer guys. They studied a group of blokes suffering from, er, sexual dysfunction, and found they were generally thinner and fitter than those who didn’t.
The reason the bigger blokes last longer in bed is, somewhat ironically (and not in an Alanis Morissette way), female hormones. The fatter the bloke, the more of these they had, which slows their progress towards orgasm.
I see. Well, if I’m to take the study seriously, should I conclude that if you’re looking for an Olympic performer in the bedroom you don’t want an athlete?
There are so many things I could say on this topic, some of them appropriate and some not much, given this is a family-friendly blog. There’s also the slight issue that when it comes to body shape, I’m built for comfort not speed myself.
So rather than open myself up to claims involving the words pot, kettle and black - or just plain nasty - let me again quote from the original article.
“This is not to deny that, when it comes to overweight lovers, there may also be an issue of 'quality vs. quantity' involved, not to mention aesthetic and cardiological issues etc."
Well actually I’m inclined to disagree with this whole study. I’ve written before about how the BMI is a flawed measurement. Using BMI to measure a fit and muscular person often doesn’t work – such a person can come out as overweight when they’re anything but.
So I rather think the whole study is based on a shaky premise. Besides, studies are a bit like statistics – you can all but make them say anything you want, so it's best to take them with a grain of salt. It still gave me a bit of giggle though.
So, your thoughts?
» Join Are We There Yet on Facebook.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
7 minutes? Aahahahhahahhahaha! Lets just say EVERYONE in this study performed below par. Turky must be a nation of sexually frustrated women.
@ AAW. "So I rather think the whole study is based on a shaky premise. Besides, studies are a bit like statistics – you can all but make them say anything you want, so it's best to take them with a grain of salt."
That pretty much summed it up.
That's not even mentioning how many factors will come into play on how long someone can go for. For example, time since last session, how tired someone is, different positions used.....
My BMI is 26.4 which puts me "overweight". I would be concerned if my weight dropped such that I could fit the "ideal" that BMI decrees.
Ann wrote "So I rather think the whole study is based on a shaky premise"
Leon read it as another word entirely other than premise (but sounds similar)
Coffee now on screen.
7 minutes?! Geez, did they do the study on guys who were so overweight they were out of breath and had to stop by then? I think the real thing that increases bedroom performance / stamina is practise ;)
I'm quite surprised that they equate a good lover with 'lasts the longest'. There's nothing quite so unsatisfying as a man who takes absolutely forever to finish, and you end up just lying there wishing he'd get it over with because you're starting to get cramp.
In general terms we tend to think the less fit we are the slower we'll be at doing something. If for example I run a half marathon and found that my time was significantly longer than my expected value then I would tend to think I need to work harder at improving my fitness.
Why should we assume this errr measure of speed should operate in the opposite direction?
Of course I am making the leap that BMI = fitness, so maybe my argument is flawed ;-)
@ Leon - Haha coffee on screen at your comment :oP
@ Geoff - Please dont lose any weight that would be scary
@ AAW - Sounds like a load of bollocks to me too, BMI is rubbish and cant be used to accurately measure anything and I prefer my man with a little muscle.
In my personal experience weight has nothing to do with how long a guy lasts, sometimes a guy can go for ages and then the next time the same guys lasts 5 mins. As long as he can be inventive then im happy ;o)
@tobybong #2
I beg to differ... sometimes five minutes is ALL I need. ;)
Hahahahahahahahahaha... haaahahahahahahaha. Not in my personal experiance, but hey!
Ethnic rights advice stuns communities
Daily trivia quiz: February 12
Dotcom accused van der Kolk 'flabbergasted'
Roll on 2050 - New Zealand economy to rise
Prison officers 'turned into mules'
Ethnic rights advice stuns communities
Teens mimic depression to get prescription drugs
Dotcom accused van der Kolk 'flabbergasted'
Roll on 2050 - New Zealand economy to rise
Helmet law halves cyclist numbers
Quake city assets set to be popular
Welly whiz-kid sees hi-tech future for education
CERA report prompts mall evacuation
Ah, science! Sorry, the sample size from my own personal research project is just too small for me to say if differences in performance are significant. Besides, duration is only one measure of sexual performance. I can't help but wonder if chubby guys last longer because they're unfit - they have to keep stopping to catch their breath?