According to a study just coming out in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, "variations in emotional intelligence--the ability to identify and manage emotions of one's self and others--are associated with orgasmic frequency during intercourse and masturbation."
In short, the study found:
Emotional intelligence was not associated with ... age and years of education, nor did we find a significant association between emotional intelligence and potential risk factors for [female orgasmic disorder] FOD such as age, body mass index, physical or sexual abuse, or menopause. We found emotional intelligence to be positively correlated with both frequency of orgasm during intercourse ... and masturbation .... Women in the lowest quartile of emotional intelligence had an approximate twofold increased risk of infrequent orgasm ... Low emotional intelligence seems to be a significant risk factor for low orgasmic frequency. Consideration of this behavioral risk factor may need to be incorporated into research into FOD and possible treatment approaches.
This is interesting, and probably a valid finding in that it appears to be statistically demonstrable that there is a correlation between measured emotional intelligence and orgasm frequency. The correlation is positive, modest (between 0.13 and 0.23 Spearman's, and confirmed with logistical regression), and statistically significant.
What I find even more interesting than this finding (which is important if somewhat unsurprising) is that one can even do a study using matched pairs of twins and have a statistically significant difference in both emotional intelligence measured by standard tests and patterns of orgasm frequency.
Emotional intelligence is a brain thing and we might expect to see it vary for a number of reasons. Here we have evidence that genetics is not the only factor in this variable. I expect that among genetically typical individuals without pathologies, there would be almost no genetic effect, but the presumption of genetics is so strong that I fear most people don't get that. Patterns of sexual behavior and physiology, which relates to orgasm frequency and distribution, may be very closely related to reproduction (though for reasons you may not expect). Again, we have measurable and (possibly) meaningful variation that is not genetic.
Burri, A., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. (2009). Emotional Intelligence and Its Association with Orgasmic Frequency in Women Journal of Sexual Medicine DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01297.x
Humanities & Social Science
Medicine & Health
Comments
among genetically typical individuals
Hum, I'm not sure if I know what is "genetically typical"... What did you mean??
Posted by: Laurent | May 12, 2009 9:02 AM
Sorry, I know that's vague ...
What i mean is this: Claims are often made that a particular thing (language, intelligence, whatever), which in itself is often hard to define as a phenotype, is "genetic" because some individuals have some totally broken gene and among the many complex, system wide, cascading effects of that broken gene is some aspect of the trait in question. I don't count that as a valid argument that a thing is genetic, though such research can kinda be sorta a clue to something, maybe.
So what I mean is, put aside examples where someone is missing a chunk of a chromosome or is a chimera (or any other large scale structural genetic variant) or has a highly unique allele with multiple effects, or homologous non functioning gene where almost everyone else has at least one functioning gene.
The line between genetically 'broken' and variation will be difficult in some cases. That, however, does not obviate the importance of not getting it wrong by overstating the meaning of certain genetic effects.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 12, 2009 9:11 AM
Maybe they should have thrown in measure of stress levels here. It seems probable to me if you can deal with your own and other's emotions you will not be as stressed out as someone who cannot cope. We know there are correlations between sexual function and stress.
Posted by: sailor | May 12, 2009 9:30 AM
I still think it's possible that the orgasms are leading to better EQ scores. After all, you can 'improve' EQ scores with training, therapy and other mood-boosters - why not sex?
Posted by: Christie | May 12, 2009 9:50 AM
Okay. On the other hand, when the ultimate correlate is as broad as a fitness/reproductive measurement, then even if there are some traits with genetic variation pending (thus potentially selectable and selected for), one can come with an entirely different set of other traits completely compensating for the lack of fitting characteristic on the first one.
The line between genetically 'broken' and variation will be difficult.
Hum, that's a major research theme. I hope someday molecular biologists will realise mutations and natural variation are not necessarily covered by those elements they study...
Posted by: Laurent | May 12, 2009 9:57 AM
though for reasons you may not expect
Do you have some striking reason in mind?
Posted by: Laurent | May 12, 2009 10:01 AM
I think it's becoming more accepted that changes in the epigenome in response to the environment play a large role in generating the phenotypic differences between twins. I wrote a few pieces on epigenetics in my blog at https://fuschmu.wordpress.com
Posted by: fuschmu | May 12, 2009 10:17 AM
Did someone say "orgasm"? :-)
Improving EQ scores with sex! Yay!
Posted by: Stacy | May 12, 2009 10:31 AM
So... is it emotional intelligence causing more frequent orgasms, or vice versa? Does an increase in one affect the other as a two-way street?
I'm resisting the urge to make a comment about collecting empirical evidence with twins. I would likely be beaten to death by my ever-so-loving girlfriend.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | May 12, 2009 10:55 AM
Do you have some striking reason in mind?
I am not sure if what I have to say on this will be strikingly new or not .... it depends on what literature you've read.
Inre: causality: I'm going with "orgasms in crease EQ, IQ and general health and well being" ...
... no particular reason, I'm just going with it....
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 12, 2009 11:21 AM
Posted by: cm | May 12, 2009 2:53 PM
Were all the subjects female?
Posted by: Luke | May 12, 2009 5:46 PM
cm: It depends.
luke: I think so, yes.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 12, 2009 6:51 PM
Seems logical.
Because of the mirror neurons thingy I guess.
I cannot speak for others but what I enjoy most in sex is my partner's orgasms. So it's logical that people with more emotional intelligence, thus empathy, enjoy more.
It's also consistent with women's "superiority" ;-) in this area.
Posted by: El.Guerrero del Interfaz | May 12, 2009 7:49 PM
Yes, I have found this to be true based on my own...personal studies.
The more I was able to identify my emotions and express them, the easier it was to orgasm.
Still have yet to test this with another Emotionally Intelligent person, but I hypothosize that doing so would be "mind blowing." Never have I wanted to conduct an experiment more. Talk about a passion for science.
Posted by: Kelli | May 13, 2009 7:23 PM
Women took edge for this thing, so now women will have better sex for their emotional intelligence.
Posted by: Jeff Turner | May 15, 2009 9:55 AM
Somewhat surprised the obvious corollary wasn't noted here or in the paper: men clearly have higher EQ than women since they all pretty much always have orgasms....ow, eek, splat!
More seriously, I'd have liked to have seen a much wider assessment of things like satisfaction, happiness with the relationship and so on. Other studies have shown that orgasm counting may not be a good assessment of female desire or satisfaction.
Posted by: Johnny Baker | May 17, 2009 3:17 PM
You have to be careful drawing conclusions from twin studies about what is or is not genetic. I have not seen the study in question, but there are several ways in which most twin studies are flawed.
Also, if they threw a whole bunch of variables in there and looked for "statistically significant" correlations, there's a good chance of finding a spurious, non-biologically significant correlation if no Bonferroni correction was performed.
The danger with spurious correlations is that we can always turn ourselves in knots coming up with reasons for them. Those reasons aren't any less made-up for all the effort.
Posted by: Biotunes | May 20, 2009 11:05 PM
Biotunes: I agree with you,but this study does not do what any of those other twin studies does. Rather the opposite. As far as I can tell, twins are chosen simply to have the best possible set of matched pairs. That's actually not a bad methodology. Genetic vs. non-genetic is not being looked at here.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 20, 2009 11:33 PM
So difficult information
Posted by: Ballon lover | August 20, 2009 12:45 PM
To many what ifs in the scenario above.
Posted by: mike | October 13, 2009 10:21 PM
I always thought that emotional intelligence is an ability or even skill to identify and manage my or other's emotions..
Posted by: rx | October 26, 2009 4:50 AM
rx, I don't think that emotional intelligence has anything to do with any abilities or skills to manage others' emotions.
It's just the demonstration of one's temperament.
Posted by: ED | November 3, 2009 5:06 PM
I'm simply panting to see if better lovers = more orgasms = higher EQ . . .
Posted by: Anna K. | November 3, 2009 5:15 PM