Psychology - OU Community Online

Watching a Hollywood movie that explores relationships in late middle age, Meg Barker reflects on fact and fiction in our depictions of the sexual.

I recently caught up with the romantic comedy movie Hope Springs. The movie is about a couple in their sixties (Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones) who go to intensive couple therapy (with Steve Carrell) because Streep's character is concerned about the lack of intimacy and sex in their relationship (see this on YouTube). 

On one level I loved the movie. The performances were all astonishingly good, the comedy was pitched perfectly and had me laughing out loud, and I shed a tear or two in the darkest hour before the dawn because it was such a good depiction of how lonely it is possible to be in a relationship.

However, as soon as the final credits had rolled, I started to reflect on the messages about sex and relationships in the film and found some of them pretty problematic. Here's my assessment:

Fiction: Relationships are tough. Fact: Relationships are tough
One of the best things about the movie is that it doesn't present a totally Hollywoodised version of relationships as some perfect happily-ever-after. The couple, Kay and Arnold, have not found that the love and sex that were present at the start of their relationship have stayed constant all the way through. They have changed over time, as all people do, and they have found they can't communicate very well and don't feel close any more. Kay captures a common experience well: 'It shouldn’t be hard to touch a person that you love. But it is. 

Fiction: Older people can still want sex. Fact: Older people still want sex
Another big plus was the depiction of people in their sixties as just as sexual beings as the people in their twenties and thirties whom we are more used to seeing in films. This includes a number of realistic sex scenes which are a rarity in mainstream cinema – it is often assumed that people cease being sexual as they age, with a great deal of prejudice and ridicule around sex between older people, so it was nice to see this challenged. The therapist in the movie did not make the assumption that the couple should stop caring about sex, which many professionals do when confronted with older people, or people with disabilities or health problems.

Fiction: It's good to communicate in relationships. Fact: It's good to communicate in relationships
The relationship between the main characters does improve and this seems to be due to the fact that they've started communicating with each other during therapy. However I did have some sympathy with Tommy Lee Jones' character when he questioned whether blurting out all of the resentments that had developed over the relationship was really a good idea. In the early weeks of relationship therapy I often see clients individually (alternating weeks) so they can have a free space to talk about how the relationship is for them and think about the ways in which they might kindly communicate this to their partners.

Secrets and lies are not a great idea in relationships, but it is also valuable to learn what each other's vulnerabilities are and to tread gently around these. Having some empathy for how what we say might be received makes it easier for the other person to hear it.

Fiction: Space can help a lot. Fact: Space can help a lot
One key moment in the movie was when both characters went off and had a day on their own. This seemed to enable them to become closer and take more of a risk with each other. This was a nice portrayal of how valuable space is for a relationship. Time apart helps to remind us of who we are with other people as well as with our partner, so we are less focused just upon the relationship and how difficult it is. We can also get some fulfillment from ourselves and from other people, so that we aren't expecting the relationship to be everything for us. For example, Kay got the reassurance she wanted from people she met in a bar and that took the pressure off Arnold. Arnold was able to calm down and to stop lashing out. Time apart also often means that we are able to see our partners more fully rather than fixing them as just one side of who they are (boring or difficult, for example). 

Fiction: Relationships must be sexual. Fact: Relationships can be sexual or not
Perhaps the main problem with the movie is that it reinforces the common myth that the romantic relationships must be sexual all the way through and that not being sexual is a sign that there is a problem. This is a big ask, given how long relationships last, and Esther Perel has written very well on the difficulties of sustaining relationships that are both warm and hot. Many relationships go through long periods of not being sexual, some are never sexual, some cease being sexual at a certain point, and some involve partners who get their sexual desires met in other ways (e.g. with other people or with pornography, erotic, fantasy and/or solo sex). Interestingly, any form of open relationship is twice presented as a big joke in the movie. Of course this might not be the thing for Kay and Arnold, but they do work for many people so it is a shame to ridicule them.

Asexual communities are currently raising awareness of the fact that it is perfectly possible to not experience sexual attraction. The therapist in Hope Springs seemed to assume that Kay and Arnold had to recapture their sexual relationship, rather than really exploring whether this was something they wanted and, if so, why it was important, and the different ways of doing this.

Fiction: People should sleep together. Fact: It is fine to sleep apart
Another common myth reproduced in the film is that sleeping in separate beds/bedrooms is a sign of relationship problems. This is not necessarily the case at all. Some people love sleeping together and some hate it, and it may well change over a relationship (for example if people develop different sleeping routines or if one person snores or moves a lot in their sleep). Indeed having separate rooms to retreat to when partners want to could be a very helpful way of getting the kind of space that can be so valuable to relationships.

Fiction: There is one thing called intimacy. Fact: There are many different kinds of intimacy
Carrell's therapist also seems to equate sexual, physical and emotional intimacy and focuses on getting Kay and Arnold to be physically and sexually close. Personally I would have focused more upon their relationship in general rather than forcing physical/sexual closeness before they were communicating well. And, as mentioned above, it is perfectly possible to have each of these kinds of intimacy without the others.

Fiction: Sex is penis-in-vagina intercourse. Fact: There are many different kinds of sex
There is a moment in the movie where the couple are about to have sex and Arnold loses his erection. Kay is very unhappy after this and nearly leaves because she assumes that it means that he doesn't find her attractive. Everything is better when they manage to have 'successful' penis-in-vagina intercourse. There are a whole load of sex myths in here. Clearly penis-in-vagina intercourse is represented as 'real', 'proper' sex, and sex is seen as requiring an erect penis and ending in ejaculation. There isn't, for example, the possibility of sex which is focused on Kay's pleasure, or the possibility of Kay and Arnold enjoying less genitally-focused forms of pleasure. Also erections are equated with attraction when these things may, or may not, be related (there are many other reasons why somebody might lose an erection).

Fiction: It is okay to go ahead with sex without much communication. Fact: Communication first is vital
When Carrell asks Kay and Arnold what they fantasise about sexually Kay struggles to come up with anything, and Arnold manages a couple of possibilities (oral sex and threesomes). The conversation is left there rather than pursuing Kay's desires or really checking out whether she shares any of Arnold's desires (teasing apart the cultural views of these activities from her own feelings). The real danger of this is that people will then feel forced into having sex that they don't want.  At the end of the film Kay seems to be so relieved that she and Arnold are finally having sex that what she might enjoy sexually seems to have disappeared (she has been vague about whether missionary position sex is pleasurable or orgasmic for her).

If people don't communicate about their sexual desires there is a significant risk that the sex they have will not really be something that they have consented to. It can be very painful to be a person who ends up having sex that they really don't enjoy (like Kay when she attempts oral sex in the movie theatre because she thinks this is what Arnold wants). It can also be very difficult to be a person who realises that the person they are having sex with isn't enjoying it (as Arnold speaks about as a key reason why he stopped having sex with Kay).

With somebody like Kay who struggles to know what she desires I would want to work with her on this before doing anything (e.g. reading erotic fiction, exploring her own body). Also it would be useful to explore the menu of what is possible physically and sexually to see whether there was any common ground (rather than pushing them towards one, restrictive, version of sex). It would be useful for Kay and Arnold to make a 'yes, no, maybe' list of all the sexual and physical practices that they are aware of, and whether they are interested in them (one of the possibilities I discuss in the sex chapter of Rewriting the Rules).

Overall it is great to see movies depicting the challenges of romantic relationships and including sex and relationship therapy as a possibility. However it is about time that film-makers started to think a bit more critically about sex and about the diversity of possibilities for a good relationship.

Meg Barker 14 February 2013

Meg Barker will be talking live on the OU’s Facebook page today: follow the link here to join in from 1.30 to 2.30 pm. Or to watch Meg’s Valentine's Vox Pop in London’s Wardour Street click here.

Find out more:

You can find out more about how sex and relationship therapy works on the COSRT website which Meg helped to write.

Meg Barker is an Open University lecturer teaching mainly on counselling modules, and is also a therapist specialising in relationships.  

The views expressed in this post, as in all posts on Society Matters, are the views of the author, not The Open University.

 

Cartoon by Catherine Pain 

 

 

Looking back at an amazing sporting summer, Ben Oakley, Senior Lecturer Sports Studies explores the implications of Rower, Helen Glover's journey to gold in only four years for a new OU module (E313)* on athletic development being produced as part of the BSc Sport, Fitness and Coaching.

Four bestselling talent developments books - Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, and Bounce by Matthew Syed - have the same message at their core: success equals 10 years or 10,000 hours of 'deliberate practice' and the right opportunities.

Helen Glover's story challenges some of these assumptions - until four years ago she had never picked up an oar. She and Heather Stanning won Britain first gold medal of the London Olympics in the women's rowing pair.

"I only started rowing in 2008 when I got through the Sporting Giants scheme where I was basically chosen for being tall and sporty," Helen said of UK Sport's talent-spotting process that fast-tracked her to success.

Glover & Stanning's medal cabinet

• 2010 - World Championships, Lake Karapiro - silver
• 2011 - World Championships, Bled - silver , World Cup, Lucerne - gold , World Cup, Munich - gold
• 2012 - World Cup, Belgrade - gold , World Cup, Lucerne - gold , World Cup, Munich - gold , Olympics, London - gold
   

"They tested 4,500 of us in groups of 200 at a time. I remember sitting in a room in Bisham Abbey in 2007 and someone saying: 'A gold medallist in 2012 could be sat in this room. Look around you.' I thought: 'Right, I'm going to make that me.' It was quite surreal."

Challenging the theory
Glover's experience of making gold with four years of training questions the 10 year theory which originally derives from the research of Anders Ericsson in the early 1990s.
The appeal of his and others' message is its simplicity. You can become a champion simply with a strong work ethic and the right environment. These authors suggest that talent is overrated, downplaying the importance of natural giftedness - for them it is more about determination and hard work.

The 10,000 hour rule, as it is known, roughly equates to ten years (20 hours x 50 weeks x 10 years) of perspiration to get to the top. Little wonder these books are popular in the business community. But does it still add up?

Practice makes perfect?
It is a truism that we all improve with practice but advocates of the 10,000 hour rule go further: it is the quality of practice that is important.

Few would disagree that the ability to work persistently at weaknesses, respond to feedback and set backs whilst refining the different components of your sport is more important than just playing a lot. It also follows that excellent coaching is also needed as well as a deep seated desire to continually improve.

Helen Glover recognises the importance of coaches Paul Stannard and Miles Forbes-Thomas who shaped her initial development and Robin Williams who has made refinements in the last two years.

"Coming into rowing so quickly has been a whirlwind. I've been really lucky to have had world-class coaches throughout my time," she says.

Controversy over the 'time' needed to practice
However, there is controversy about the precise quantity of practice, since the 10,000 hour rule was derived by Ericsson asking musicians in 1993 to retrospectively recall their practice behaviour - less than reliable methodology. It is hardly surprisingly then that the theory falls under scrutiny in the new OU stage 3 module Exploring psychological aspects of athletic development starting in 2013.

Helen Glover's story supports increasing evidence that athletes change from one sport to another reaching international level sometimes in under two years. Tall athletes in the UK and Australia are transferring to high levels in sports such as handball, volleyball and rowing with only 3,000-5,000 hours of practice.

From athletics to skeleton bobsleigh, from rowing to cycling - multiple cases of this nature simply blows the 10,000 hour rule out of the water, leading to pointed comments that the convenient round number of 10,000 hours is little more than a 'nice motivational tool'.

Reductionism
Critics of the 10,000 hour rule claim it has fallen prey to the scientific tendency towards reductionism: breaking a process down into constituent parts in order to better understand it. By downplaying the natural genetic aspects of sport in favour of a nurturist perspective the complexity of becoming a champion is oversimplified.

Ericsson's research came nearly two decades before the landmark 2011 findings by Claude Bouchard on genetically determined responses to training. The fitness levels of hundreds of untrained volunteers were measured before and after five months of training.
The response in VO2max - a measure of aerobic capacity and performance - was enormously varied. Some individuals improved by less than 5% whilst others improved by 30 per cent. Bouchard identified genetic variants responsible for this difference.
Genes clearly play a big role in determining ideal body size and muscle fibre types for different sports, such as basketball, rugby or gymnastics but recent research shows that genes have another influence.

Sports scientist Ross Tucker suggests that certain genes are associated with injury. He argues some people could never reach 10,000 hours because of their susceptibility to injury at only, say, six hours per week of training.

An interactionist approach
When is comes to talent, more and more experts now believe that the original genetic differences between us may be relatively modest but practice and psychological factors do the rest. There is a complex interaction at play.

Athletes who show an innate ability realise they are good at something and consequently intensify their playful practice, enjoying their superiority. Their appetite and success thus continues on an upward trajectory, particularly if they are fortunate in having the right motivational environment and opportunity to thrive with a good coach.

Helen Glover's rapid rise to gold demonstrates that a strong work ethic and the necessary psychological characteristics can combine with potent effect as long as the athlete has the right physical requirements in the first place.

This article was adapted from Ben Oakley’s piece on BBC World Olympic Dreams. 

Find out more:

• Olympic success in the OU community
• OU student Deborah Criddle wins two Paralympic medals
• More from the OU community at the London Games 2012

 * Details of this course will appear on study with the OU soon.

Photo by: photoverulam