Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 12, 2012
Savage Love GGG—Now With Added Science!
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Debby Herbenick writing in Salon:
Five years ago, sex columnist Dan Savage suggested that, when it comes to sex, we should all aim to be GGG (“good, giving, and game… Think ‘good in bed,’ ‘giving equal time and equal pleasure’ and ‘game for anything – within reason’”). Long embraced by his readers, the GGG approach now has support from a new scientific study published in the Journal of Sex Research.
Of course, we’ve known for years that technique (for example, clitoral stimulation for women, incorporating certain sexual behaviors for either sex) matters to couples. And certainly inequitable pleasure is never a good thing, even though it persists (as I discussed in last week’s column, research shows that women are particularly prone to getting shafted in the orgasm department during hookup sex).
What this new study from researchers at the University of Arizona and Hanover College adds, at least from my perspective, is the additional layer of understanding of how being “game for anything—within reason” contributes to intimacy and satisfaction.
2
All male-female couples and presumably most of them nominally monogamous. Read Dan Savage and do your "traditional" relationship right!
3
"To be fair, the researchers didn’t actually examine the GGG phenomenon. They didn’t use the term “GGG,” nor did they use the phrase “game for anything” anywhere in their research paper....."
Oh poor Danny.
When will you learn to read past the second paragraph?
Oh poor Danny.
When will you learn to read past the second paragraph?
4
@3 - And after that sentence you quote comes this:
"But as a scientist myself, I’m going to go out on a limb and pronounce the term “sexual transformations” to be the nerdier first cousin to the slightly cooler third G in the trifecta: “being game for anything – within reason.”"
Oh poor troll. When will you learn to read past the first half of the fourth paragraph?
"But as a scientist myself, I’m going to go out on a limb and pronounce the term “sexual transformations” to be the nerdier first cousin to the slightly cooler third G in the trifecta: “being game for anything – within reason.”"
Oh poor troll. When will you learn to read past the first half of the fourth paragraph?
6
5
sure.
The "scientist" in question is someone Danny hires to fill in for him.
Kissing your employer's Ass ≠ Objective "research"
The "study" "found that women and men in the study who reported engaging in more intimate behaviors – that is, warm, tingly stuff like hugs, kisses, cuddles and massages – reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction...."
hugs, kisses, cuddles and massages!
OMG....this is cutting edge stuff!
didn't see anything about Danny's obsession, pegging, in there though....
"That said, this study painted with pretty broad brush strokes, which means the results are mere hints at the bigger picture."
In other words; the "study" ranks a little below a Cosmopolitan advice column on the scale of credibility and relevance.....
sure.
The "scientist" in question is someone Danny hires to fill in for him.
Kissing your employer's Ass ≠ Objective "research"
The "study" "found that women and men in the study who reported engaging in more intimate behaviors – that is, warm, tingly stuff like hugs, kisses, cuddles and massages – reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction...."
hugs, kisses, cuddles and massages!
OMG....this is cutting edge stuff!
didn't see anything about Danny's obsession, pegging, in there though....
"That said, this study painted with pretty broad brush strokes, which means the results are mere hints at the bigger picture."
In other words; the "study" ranks a little below a Cosmopolitan advice column on the scale of credibility and relevance.....
10
@6: Time for someone to bring the science.
First, you assert that the people in charge of the study work for Dan. The two scientists in question, Tricia J. Burke and Valerie J. Young, do not appear to have any connection to Dan Savage. Burke is a communication scholar currently teaching at the University of Puget Sound; her specialty is interpersonal communication, especially among couples and families. Young appears to be affiliated (as a student or as faculty) with the University of Arizona's Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families.
I could find no record of either having collaborated with or worked for Dan Savage, and a Google search for either of their names in conjunction with his comes up empty. If you have evidence in support of your claim, you better show it now.
That settles your false accusation of bias. I'll get to the actual CONTENT of the study in a bit.
First, you assert that the people in charge of the study work for Dan. The two scientists in question, Tricia J. Burke and Valerie J. Young, do not appear to have any connection to Dan Savage. Burke is a communication scholar currently teaching at the University of Puget Sound; her specialty is interpersonal communication, especially among couples and families. Young appears to be affiliated (as a student or as faculty) with the University of Arizona's Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families.
I could find no record of either having collaborated with or worked for Dan Savage, and a Google search for either of their names in conjunction with his comes up empty. If you have evidence in support of your claim, you better show it now.
That settles your false accusation of bias. I'll get to the actual CONTENT of the study in a bit.
11
@6: (cont)
The focus of the study was on the interactions between three factors in a romantic relationship: relationship satisfaction, intimate behavior, and sexual transformations. (Respectively: how good you feel about your relationship, how much kissing/cuddling/sex you get done with your significant other, and how you've altered your sex life to please your S.O.) When you consider that the first and third in that list could be seen from the perspective of either partner, the total number of factors in play grows to five. Now, let's look at the abstract:
In layman's terms: indulging your lover's sexual preferences/desires tends to mean a happier relationship. That sounds an awful lot like GGG. Any further questions?
More...
The focus of the study was on the interactions between three factors in a romantic relationship: relationship satisfaction, intimate behavior, and sexual transformations. (Respectively: how good you feel about your relationship, how much kissing/cuddling/sex you get done with your significant other, and how you've altered your sex life to please your S.O.) When you consider that the first and third in that list could be seen from the perspective of either partner, the total number of factors in play grows to five. Now, let's look at the abstract:
To understand the association between sexual transformations (i.e., changes in sexual behavior for the partner), intimate behaviors, and relationship quality among couples in romantic relationships, this study used Actor Partner Interdependence Models to examine frequency of sexual transformations, feelings about sexual transformations, and intimate behaviors as predictors of relationship satisfaction among 96 couples (N = 192). Sexual transformations were also examined as a moderator of the association between intimate behavior and relationship satisfaction. Results indicated that relationship satisfaction was positively associated with partners’ frequent sexual transformations, actors’ positive feelings about sexual transformations, and intimate behavior from the partner. Further, in less intimate relationships, relationship satisfaction was greater when partners reported making more sexual transformations.Yes, it's well-known that intimate behavior correlates strongly to relationship satisfaction; that wasn't the main point in the study or the article. The big news, the scientific support for Dan's "GGG" concept, is that sexual transformations made by one partner correlate strongly to the relationship satisfaction of the OTHER partner.
In layman's terms: indulging your lover's sexual preferences/desires tends to mean a happier relationship. That sounds an awful lot like GGG. Any further questions?
12
10
gosh junior
we feel so bad for you
it must really suck going through life so fucking dumb....
The "scientist" in question @6 is Danny's faghag friend Debby who said @4 "as a scientist myself" blah blah
sorry you worked so hard......
gosh junior
we feel so bad for you
it must really suck going through life so fucking dumb....
The "scientist" in question @6 is Danny's faghag friend Debby who said @4 "as a scientist myself" blah blah
sorry you worked so hard......
13
@12: She's not the one who did the research. Why does it matter if she might have a bias in favor of Dan? She had nothing to do with the study, and therefore her personal allegiances mean nothing.
Is that the best you have?
Is that the best you have?
15
13
we admire your persistence.
don't be ashamed of your handicaps, strive to overcome them!
1 She is the author of the article the post quotes and is based on.
2 She is the one who claims the study validates Danny
3 She is the person quoted or referenced in @3,@4,@5 and @6.
No. It is not the best we have.
If we unleashed the best we have you would be nothing but cinders.
we admire your persistence.
don't be ashamed of your handicaps, strive to overcome them!
1 She is the author of the article the post quotes and is based on.
2 She is the one who claims the study validates Danny
3 She is the person quoted or referenced in @3,@4,@5 and @6.
No. It is not the best we have.
If we unleashed the best we have you would be nothing but cinders.
17
@15: Again, she didn't have anything to do with the research. Objectively, the study supports Dan's "GGG" concept. WHY does it matter if the person writing the article might have been biased? The research, which is what really demonstrates the effect, is perfectly valid.
You still haven't responded to my point in #11. What you've already said really is the best you have, and that's quite sad.
You still haven't responded to my point in #11. What you've already said really is the best you have, and that's quite sad.
19
@18: Okay then, looks like you don't know what you're talking about, but for whatever reason just want to hate on Dan whenever possible. You really need a hobby.
21
I count 8 posts from someone who got upset that a friend of Dan's read some research and thought it supported his GGG concept. I blame the unemployment rate for providing this nimrod with so much free time.
23
oh my - we've been arguing with a child ... or a lazy asshole ... are you too young to work, or just lazy?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (23) RSS