Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

GGG—Now With Added Science!

Posted by 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.

Read the whole thing.

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Pope Peabrain 1
But "getting shafted" isn't always a bad thing.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on September 12, 2012 at 8:48 AM · Report this
2
All male-female couples and presumably most of them nominally monogamous. Read Dan Savage and do your "traditional" relationship right!
Posted by DRF on September 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM · Report this
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?
Posted by to be Fair. and Balanced. on September 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM · Report this
smajor82 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?

Posted by smajor82 on September 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM · Report this
mikethehammer 5
@3,

Respond to @4 dumb shit.
Posted by mikethehammer on September 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM · Report this
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.....
Posted by pretty broad brush strokes on September 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM · Report this
mikethehammer 7
Thanks dumbshit.
Posted by mikethehammer on September 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM · Report this
8
7

you'rewelcome
Posted by Enlightening the Looney Left One Teeny Tiny Brain at a Time on September 12, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
very bad homo 9
Someone here has a serious anonymous crush on you, Dan!
Posted by very bad homo on September 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM · Report this
venomlash 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.
Posted by venomlash on September 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM · Report this
venomlash 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:
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?
More...
Posted by venomlash on September 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM · Report this
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......

Posted by were you the inspiration for Homer Simpson? on September 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM · Report this
venomlash 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?
Posted by venomlash on September 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM · Report this
Sandiai 14
That seems to have shut him up.
Posted by Sandiai on September 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM · Report this
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.
Posted by Now run along or you'll miss SpongeBob.... on September 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM · Report this
16
14

ouch.

Holy Simultaneous Post Ass-Burn, Batman!
Posted by run along dear, Homer needs another beer on September 12, 2012 at 3:23 PM · Report this
venomlash 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.
Posted by venomlash on September 12, 2012 at 4:44 PM · Report this
18
17

oh yes we see your point.....
Posted by ...backing away slowly, removing sharp objects from the room on September 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM · Report this
venomlash 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.
Posted by venomlash on September 12, 2012 at 8:55 PM · Report this
20
19

yeah. thanks a lot, Glue.
Posted by Rubber on September 13, 2012 at 5:27 AM · Report this
smajor82 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.
Posted by smajor82 on September 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM · Report this
22
21

no.

Junior is a student.

she's never worked a day in her life....
Posted by but blaming Obama is a pretty safe bet on September 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM · Report this
smajor82 23
oh my - we've been arguing with a child ... or a lazy asshole ... are you too young to work, or just lazy?
Posted by smajor82 on September 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy