We Need to Talk About Sex: Older Adult Edition

The first reaction of many people upon hearing that their grandparents may still be ‘getting some’, is to show a look of horror and say ‘I don’t want to think about it’. Despite sexuality being such a fundamental part of human nature, society seems to have assigned it an expiration date. And yet, statistics show that many older adults engage in sexual behaviour, and they consider it important to their lives and even actively express desire for intimacy, just as frequently as their younger contemporaries (Sousa et al., 2016). Despite this information, older adults face stigma from media that perpetuate negative myths and stereotypes about sexuality in later life; they may be negatively affected when these beliefs are upheld by themselves and others, including their health care providers. As a result, older adults often suffer from increased risk of disease, and they face issues to acquiring necessary treatment as well as other barriers to their sexual needs.

According to a cross-national survey conducted in the U.S, a fourth of older males aged 74-85, half of those between 65 and 74, and three-fourths of those aged 57-64 regularly engaged in sexual activity. Moreover, women showed similar results (Lindau et al., 2007). These data showcase that older adults are not asexual, as we are often led to believe. In spite of these findings, media often portray older adults in such ways, either by omitting older adults whenever sexuality is brought up (i.e., the lack of older adults in ‘sexy’ ads, such as lingerie ads) or in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes like ‘cougars’ or ‘dirty old men’ that shame the presence of sexuality in older adults, positing that it is ‘unnatural’ (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2018).

These stereotypes and myths are often then internalized by both older adults and other people, which in turn affects them in a number of ways. For example, older adults may feel shame with regards to intimacy, which then manifests in an unwillingness to discuss sexuality with their families or health care providers. This reluctance is problematic in a multitude of ways, and one reflection of this is in the rise of STI (sexually transmitted infection) diagnoses, such as HIV/AIDs, in older adults (Rheaume & Ethel, 2008). Given that today’s older adults had grown up in a time in which talking about sexuality was more taboo than it is now, there is a knowledge gap that exists in terms of STI protection and on how to negotiate for safe sex with new partners (Reissing & Armstrong, 2017). If older adults are unwilling to disclose information regarding their sexual history to health care professionals, the gap is not filled, and the consequences may be dire. Despite being at a higher risk for STIs than younger people because of their lower immune system functioning and other vulnerabilities related to aging (Reissing & Armstrong, 2017), older adults are less likely to take precautions as they do not believe themselves to be susceptible (Sousa et al., 2016), thereby leading to a greater number of STIs in older adults.

Internalization of myths and stereotypes do not only affect older adults directly, but also indirectly. Lack of knowledge and the presence of age-related bias in practitioners are common. In one study, physicians reported that they felt that they were insufficiently educated in sexuality in later life and therefore did not discuss sexual issues with their older patients. A study of psychiatrists also revealed that they often omit questions about sexual history in their assessment of older men, which often led to inappropriate referrals and treatments (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2018). Even when sexual dysfunction is raised, bias is evident: although a clinician may view it as ‘treatable’ in a younger patient, it is viewed as ‘normal’ in an older patient (Sousa et al., 2016). This bias is also a reflection of a dichotomy in which it seems that two models are being used in the approach to sexual problems depending on age. With younger patients, practitioners adopt a biopsychosocial model (i.e. taking an interdisciplinary approach that take into consideration the biological, psychological and social factors in diagnosis) (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2018), which is currently being recommended in the field, and yet defaulting to a purely medical model (i.e. the classic approach—insinuates that biological and psychological aspects should be treated separately) (Swaine, 2011) for older adults, ignoring any psychological and social factors that could be coming into play (Estill et al., 2017). As such, older patients do not receive the treatment that they need, or they receive inappropriate treatment.

Furthermore, in many long-term care homes, staff members often hold negative views with regards to any sort of ‘sexual expression’ displayed by their residents. Not only that, but the settings themselves are often not conducive in allowing residents access to their sexual rights, considering the lack of privacy and the stigma that may be incurred if their sexual behaviour was discovered by staff or by other residents (Rheaume & Ethel, 2008). Therefore, many patients in long-term care are unable to have their sexual needs met, and the attitudes of staff only serve to further deepen the myths and stereotypes regarding sexuality in older adults.

Despite these negative findings, there has been research conducted on ways to reduce ageism—that is, prejudice or discrimination based on someone’s age—in sexuality. One of the most notable methods has been education targeted towards health care providers. It has been seen that education in health care providers is essential in eliminating negative stereotypes and views about sexuality in later life (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2018). Such education typically would encompass how to recognize cues of desire in older adults, address methods in which staff may facilitate a patient’s sexual expression, and provide skills for the dismantling of stereotypes. Furthermore, privacy policies, such as simple ‘do not disturb’ signs may help in providing private environments for said sexual expression (Rheaume & Ethel, 2008).

Research has also shown that older adults, like younger adults, vary in sexual expression. Sexuality often shifts to non-genital intimacy. As such, health care providers can also be trained to consider sexuality in a broader sense and how to develop treatment plans that include this expanded approach to sexuality (Rheaume & Ethel, 2008). Once trained, practitioners can then help by promoting more realistic attitudes towards sexuality in older adults and guide patients in expanding their sexual repertoire so that their expression of sexual identity becomes consistent with their reality, instead of trying to force themselves into a standard model that is protrayed by media (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2018). This shift may also help reduce the effect on internalized stigma older adults may have towards themselves.

Society as a whole can also participate by putting an end to our beliefs in the myths about sexuality in old age and begin to hold open, inclusive discussions about sexuality in all phases of life. We should advocate for positive media – for the end of the perceived mutual exclusivity between sexuality and old age and the end of the taboo over sexuality in later life. We should hold and encourage the discussion about sexuality in later life, to assure that people, regardless of age, feel comfortable in expressing their sexuality and advocate for their sexual health.

In conclusion, bias and stereotypes about sexuality in older adults have been internalized by our society, and they are reflected in the absence or mockery of sexuality in later life by media, in the reluctance to speak about sexuality on the part of older adults themselves, and in the biases of many health care providers. Such negativity may affect older adults as it may lead to an increase in STI transmission risk, difficulty in accessing necessary treatment, and form barriers to their sexual needs. However, as a society, we can end ageism in sexuality through proper education in our health care providers, the adoption of new policies that would allow for an appropriate environment for sexual expression in long-term care homes, the development of positive, inclusive media about sexuality in older adults, and transformative thinking about sex.

As such, maybe we should stop talking about what sex “should” be—this idealized version of sex targeted towards only young couples. Maybe we should stop marginalizing those that don’t fit within what society has defined as “typical”, like older adults. After all, sexual rights are a part of our human rights, and they should be accessible to everyone without stigma or fear of negative consequences. So, maybe we should forget about what sex should be and instead, talk about what sex could be—and that includes having ‘sexy’ grandparents.

Eva Lan

4th Year BAH Linguistics, Queen’s University

 

References

  • Estill, Amy, et al. “The Effects of Subjective Age and Aging Attitudes on Mid- to Late-Life Sexuality.” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 55, no. 2, Mar. 2017, pp. 146–151., doi:10.1080/00224499.2017.1293603.

  • Gewirtz-Meydan, Ateret, et al. “Ageism and Sexuality.” International Perspectives on Aging Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism, 2018, pp. 149–162., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_10.

  • Lindau, Stacy Tessler, et al. “A Study of Sexuality and Health among Older Adults in the United States.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 357, no. 8, 2007, pp. 762–774., doi:10.1056/nejmoa067423.

  • Reissing, Elke, and Armstrong, Heather. Human Sexuality: a Contemporary Introduction. OUP Canada, 2017.

  • Rheaume, Chris, and Ethel Mitty. “Sexuality and Intimacy in Older Adults.” Geriatric Nursing, vol. 29, no. 5, 2008, pp. 342–349., doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2008.08.004.

  • Sousa, Avinash De, et al. “Sexuality in Older Adults: Clinical and Psychosocial Dilemmas.” Journal of Geriatric Mental Health, vol. 3, no. 2, 2016, p. 131., doi:10.4103/2348-9995.195629.

  • Swaine Z. (2011) Medical Model. In: Kreutzer J.S., DeLuca J., Caplan B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer, New York, NY

Does distance make the heart grow fonder?

If you’re a young adult, you probably know someone (or maybe you are someone!) in a long-distance relationship. With the abundance of communication technology available today - text, FaceTime, Skype, Snapchat, just to name a few - long-distance relationships (LDRs) are easier to initiate and maintain than ever before. If you’ve ever been in an LDR, chances are you’ve gotten a characteristic response from others: A sharp inhale and “Oh no, that must be so hard!” whenever you tell someone about your faraway love. Generally, people seem to think that LDRs are a huge struggle, requiring much more work than “regular” geographically close relationships (GCRs), but are they really that different?  

Sure, there are some differences between the two: for example, LDRs come with unique stressors like travel costs and increased time management demands. “Segmentation” is a common practice in LDRs. Segmentation occurs when time together is devoted strictly to the relationship and time apart is devoted to… basically everything else. It can either make the relationship easier to prioritize, or it can cause even more stress for individuals because they suddenly feel all the weight of their previously put-aside responsibilities when their partner leaves (Sahlstein, 2006). With regards to social network usage (i.e., Facebook), those in LDRs reported higher levels of relationship maintenance via Facebook usage, used Facebook more for partner surveillance (a.k.a. “stalking” your partner’s activity), and experienced higher levels of Facebook jealousy (a.k.a. feeling jealous when your partner adds someone of their interested gender) than those in GCRs (Billedo, Kerkhof, & Finkenauer, 2015). But do these differences really spell out despair for LDR couples?

Research suggests not! In a 2015 study at the Queen’s University’s Sexual Health Research Lab, investigators found that there were very few differences between LDRs and GCRs, and that individual factors (attitudes about LDRs, relationship certainty, etc.) and relationship factors (amount of face-to-face contact, distance apart, etc.) were what ultimately determined relationship quality (Dargie, Blair, Goldfinger, & Pukall, 2015). In addition, some LDR veterans report that they actually learned a lot from their LDR, namely efficient time management, and better relational communication skills and non-physical intimacy (Mietzner, 2005), so it’s possible that there may actually be benefits to LDRs. In fact, another study found that LDRs actually had more relational stability than GCRs (Stafford & Merolla, 2007)! So LDRs may not be doomed after all.  

Perhaps some of these positive results stem from the fact that we have more opportunities than ever before to be able to keep consistent communication with long-distance partners. Just a few decades ago, an LDR usually would have meant communication primarily via handwritten letters, flower and other deliveries, and a mountain of long-distance calling bills. Sounds like a lot of effort and cost went into LDRs not so long ago. These days, we have a plethora of communication options available to us (and most of them are free to use!), which makes maintaining the connection and spark a lot easier!  

Most of us are aware of common communication apps like FaceTime, Skype, and Snapchat, and these have been associated with increased intimacy between long-distance partners (Neustaedter & Greenberg, 2012), but some tools are specifically geared towards LDR couples. For example, Netflix Party is a Google Chrome extension that embeds itself into Netflix, allowing you to synchronize video playback with anyone you add to your “party”. So no matter where your partner is, as long as you’re both in the same “party”, your movie or TV show will play at exactly the same time. If you pause it, then it will also pause for your partner. Combine Netflix Party with a FaceTime or Skype call, and you’ve got yourself a “classic” movie night! If apps aren’t enough for you, there are a ton of various wearable or household products designed to help you feel close to your partner: long-distance touch bracelets, lamps, rings, and watches that light up or vibrate when your partner interacts with theirs, and even kissing and hand-holding simulators that mold to your partner’s movements (“17…Long Distance Gadgets”, 2020)!

In addition to general communication, sexual communication and intimacy are also important in any relationship. In an LDR, sexting with your partner is often the only available source of sexual satisfaction other than solo masturbation. For those who might not know, sexting is defined as the sending and/or receiving of sexually suggestive text messages, photos or videos, and it is becoming increasingly common (Madigan, Ly, Rash, Van Ouytsel, & Temple, 2018; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011). Research shows that the majority of young adults in romantic relationships sext their partners, suggesting that sexting can be used in relationships as “an alternative way to connect sexually” (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013, p. 2593). Luckily, sex toy developers have thought of LDR couples too! There are currently many long-distance sex toys available to aid in sexting, such as the Vibease and We-Vibe Sync, which are classic vibrators made for people with vulvas, and there are even remote-controlled butt plugs like the Hush. With these toys, typically one partner wears or inserts the vibrator, while the other can control the intensity and type of sensation with a smartphone app – no matter how far away they are! So, with all of these options for intimacy enhancement available, why is the prevailing opinion that LDRs are inherently worse off than GCRs?

 Unfortunately, psychological research is sorely lacking in studies on LDRs in general – in the last five years, almost no studies on LDRs have been published, and there is a particularly large gap in research on the prevalence and effects of sexting in LDRs. Sexting has generally been given a bad rap in research thus far, often only seen as a risk factor or harmful behaviour in youth populations (Dake, Price, Maziarz, & Ward, 2012; Klettke, Hallford, & Mellor, 2014), but one can think of many obvious benefits when it is used in the context of LDRs. Sexting can ideally provide much-needed closeness and intimacy between partners in LDRs, and clearly people enjoy doing it, as evidenced by the numerous long-distance sex toys available like the ones mentioned above. However, in researching for this blog post, I could not find a single peer-reviewed article that investigated the effects of sexting in LDRs. Furthermore, there is currently no research-supported, peer-reviewed measure of sexting behaviours, which is a glaring gap in the scientific literature on this topic. As a result of this dearth of research, there are limited ways to measure the possible positive effects of sexting in LDRs, and therefore few ways to change the misconceptions some have about the feasibility of LDRs in general.

Existing research suggests that LDRs have their own unique challenges, but these challenges do not make them any more likely to end than GCRs. However, more research needs to be conducted in order to discover the true dynamics of LDRs, and how sexting may improve these connections. Results could potentially inform the practice of couples’ therapy so that clinicians can effectively support individuals who may be struggling within their LDRs. With this research and all of the tools available to help enhance intimacy in LDRs, maybe we’ll discover that (physical) absence really can make the heart grow fonder!

Michaela Young

4th Year BAH Psychology, Queen’s University

 

References

Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The Use of Social Networking Sites for Relationship Maintenance in Long-Distance and Geographically Close Romantic Relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0469

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Maziarz, L., & Ward, B. (2012). Prevalence and Correlates of Sexting Behavior in Adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2012.650959

Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Goldfinger, C., & Pukall, C. F. (2015). Go long! predictors of positive relationship outcomes in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2013.864367

Delevi, R., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2013). Personality factors as predictors of sexting. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.003

Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007

Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C. L., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2018). Prevalence of Multiple Forms of Sexting Behavior Among Youth. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314

Mietzner, S. (2005). Would You Do It Again? Relationship Skills Gained in a Long-Distance Relationship. College Student Journal.

Neustaedter, C., & Greenberg, S. (2012). Intimacy in long-distance relationships over video chat. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207785

Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty-certainty in long-distance relationships. Western Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310600710042

Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072578

Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. In Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.008

17 Weird to Wonderful Long Distance Gadgets (2020). Retrieved from https://lastingthedistance.com/.