The World of Drug Reps

In the previous article, Ask Your Doctor: The Marketing of Drugs, I showed a video of former drug rep and now filmmaker Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau speaking from her insider knowledge of how the drug companies market their wares.

Marketing drugs is the major part of a drug company’s expenses, far ahead of research and development of new product. And on the frontline of the marketing is the drug rep.

There are about 700,000 practicing physicians in the U.S., and drug companies spend about $60,000 per doctor, for a total of $57 billion, promoting their drugs. The majority of that expense is for the drug reps.

The reps are doing a good job, in that 40% of all drugs produced in the world are being consumed in the U.S. – that’s why I said in a previous article that the U.S. is a Drugged Out Nation.

Sadly, there’s a down side to all that drug use – adverse drug reactions are the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.

And, because of all that pill popping, the U.S. ranks 24th in the world for life expectancy.

I thought today it would be best to hear from the drug reps themselves, or to learn more about how they work.

At the top of the page is a trailer from a film called Side Effects, which was directed by the above mentioned Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau, the former drug rep turned filmmaker.

And below are a few videos:

1) A report on CNBC about how drug reps work.

2) A spoof of drug reps, from the TV show Scrubs.

3) A former drug rep who peddled the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa, talking about how they manipulated and hid information about the drug.

4) Gwen Olson, a former drug rep who wrote an expose about the drug industry, on how drug reps manipulate doctors.

Ask Your Doctor: The Marketing of Drugs

In yesterday’s article, Drug Ads on TV – A Brief History, I laid the blame for the epidemic of exponential growth in pharmaceutical consumption in the U.S. to August 1997, when the FDA allowed drug companies to begin advertising on TV.

The ubiquitous line you always hear in the ads, “Ask your doctor,” is the catchphrase to get you to mention that specific drug to your doctor, so that your doctor may prescribe that specific one, as opposed to a generic variation.

In the above video, Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau, a former pharmaceutical sales rep gives the inside dirt. Slattery-Moschkau, who since leaving the field has gone on to become a filmmaker, making the feature film Side Effects, starring Katherine Heigl as a pharmaceutical sales rep, discusses the billion dollar psycho/pharmaceutical marketing campaign designed to get millions of people on psychotropic drugs through slick drug ads and marketing campaigns that include ghost writing pro-drug articles for medical journals.

Meanwhile, you think advertising on TV is the final resting stop for the drug companies? Think again.

The newest fertile ground is the online marketing of drugs.

There’s been an explosive growth in online advertising: the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $1 billion on Internet ads last year and is projected to spend $1.7 billion on such marketing efforts in 2012.

And with that growth comes the potential for more unscrupulous advertising, because it’s much harder for the FDA to monitor all the websites that drug companies advertise on. Both Eli Lilly and Merck have received warning letters this year from the FDA accusing them of misleading online advertisements, but many more online ads escape the eyes of the FDA.

An increasing number of pharmaceutical firms are now using social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and MySpace, to market their products.

The drug company McNeil developed their own social media site called “ADHD Allies”—aimed at adults with ADHD—and on the site offer an online podcast on financial advice and an ADHD self-assessment tool.

What McNeil and many other drug companies are doing with their online advertising is slick and unscrupulous. The websites don’t mention the company’s product but rather market the disease, under the guise of attempting to share information and educate the public, especially those with the disease.

On these websites, the tone is educational, with the specific disease discussed, but the only options given are pharmaceutical ones. It’s not so easy to tell that a specific drug company is behind the website.

By doing things this way, drug companies can overcome fears of running afoul of FDA regulations that govern drug advertising and at the same time help brand and position their companies in a positive light with both the general public and doctors.

The top 10 drug companies using social media are: Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca US, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Merck.

So next time you hear the slogan “Ask Your Doctor,” remember that the slogan is not being used with your best interests in mind.

Drug Ads on TV – A Brief History

I started this series on drugs last week, stating that we are a drugged-out nation, and that when you take medications, it lessens your ability to achieve true health.

I’m not saying to quit taking your medications right now, as that may not be a wise thing to do. What I am saying is that you have to consider what your health goals are, and if it’s becoming healthy, then you have to start becoming proactive in getting off or at least cutting down on your medications.

Pharmaceutical drugs are not the answer to health, but it seems to be that people are being programmed to think they are.

That’s because the drug companies are doing a good job of making people think they are the savior.

A patient of mine recently told me she was on high blood pressure medication. Her blood pressure was 118/80 before she went on medication, and I told her that she does not have high blood pressure and shouldn’t be on a drug for it.

She went to see her doctor, who said that new regulations are stating that her blood pressure puts her in the pre-high blood pressure category, and that it’s now recommended that when people are in that category they should go on blood pressure medication.

I couldn’t believe when she told me this, and I told her that drug companies must have written that regulation, as the only one that serves is them.

She was wise enough to stop the medication, and she’s doing fine.

But how did we get to this point that drugs use is at such an epidemic level?

Blame it on drug ads on TV, which before August 1997 did not exist. It was at that point in time when everything changed. That’s when the FDA allowed it to happen.

Prior to 1997, the FDA rules said, “Advertisements promoting the medical use of prescription drugs must contain a ‘brief summary’ of all important information about the advertised drug, including its side effects, contraindications and effectiveness. In addition, advertisements broadcast over radio, TV or through telephone communications systems must include a ‘major statement’ prominently disclosing all of the major risks associated with the drug.”

Prior to August of 1997, print advertisements for prescription drugs were able to meet the “brief summary” requirement by including the risk-related sections of drug labeling together with the advertising copy. As the drug companies looked wistfully at the enormous marketing potential of television, they saw that there was no way to provide the required information about the drug in 30 second or one minute television ads.

Did Congress act? No, the FDA made the August 1997 rule change quietly and without consulting Congress or really anyone else. Their change allowed the drug companies to “…include information about any major risks, as well as instructions for how consumers can easily obtain more detailed information about the drug’s approved uses and risks.”

FDA Lead Deputy Commissioner Michael J. Friedman, M.D was one of the driving forces behind this change long sought by the drug companies. Dr. Friedman said in 1997, “Today’s action can help promote greater consumer awareness about prescription drugs. By describing realistic standards for television advertising of prescription drugs, we hope to end the uncertainty which has plagued both consumers and industry about the use of this medium. The FDA is committed to making sure that accurate and complete information is available to consumers.”

In the 1997 rule revision, the FDA “…presumes that the broadcast ad is truthful, not misleading, and contains information about the major health risks associated with the drug.

In lieu of providing a “brief summary,” the advertiser would have to provide a mechanism to ensure that consumers can easily obtain full product labeling.” In other words it is enough to quickly list some of the side effects along with a toll-free phone number or web address or advise the listener to speak with a physician.

Shortly after the FDA gave their blessing to the drug companies to advertise on TV, thanks to Dr. Michael Friedman, the good doctor left the agency. In 1998, President Clinton nominated Dr. Jane Henney to be the next commissioner of the FDA, and Dr. Friedman resigned to become a senior vice president at Searle, a subsidiary of Monsanto.

Which begs the question: In whose interests was Dr. Friedman looking after?

The United States and New Zealand are the only two industrial nations that allow the drug companies to advertise on television in this fashion.

As a result of being given the green light to advertise on TV, drug companies have quadrupled expenditures on ads aimed at consumers. Spending on direct-to-consumer advertising increased by 296.4% from 1997 to 2005, from $1 billion to $4 billion.

And the five single drugs with the highest expenditures for direct-to-consumer advertising were Nexium, Lunesta, Vytorin, Crestor, and Advair.

So next time you see an ad on TV, and you hear the famous tagline at the end to “ask your doctor,” remember that drug use in the U.S. has increased exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks in no small part to all that advertising on TV.

Bill Maher on Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bill Maher has a sharp wit, a sharp tongue and a sharp sense of what’s right.

And on the issue of pharmaceuticals and the drug companies, Bill Maher is one of the harshest critics around.

He doesn’t pull punches, and he speaks his mind. He’s funny, sarcastic, ironic, and knowledgeable.

Maher is a big advocate of healthy living, and feels the only way to truly reform the health care system is for people to learn how to be healthy.

Along with that, people need to learn how to resist the distorted message of the drug companies, in order that we can stop being a drugged-out nation.

So I invite you to watch the above video, and the videos below, to hear Bill Maher speak forcefully and forthrightly. You’ll find yourself laughing, while at the same time shaking your head in agreement, knowing that what he speaks is the truth.

And it might just make you angry at the drug companies and the way health care is practiced in the U.S.

The key is, if you do get angry, to do something about it. Like, just saying no – to taking pharmaceuticals.

Antidepressants: Widely Used, But Practically Useless?

In yesterday’s article entitled Drugged-Out Nation, I mentioned how antidepressants were the third most popular class of drugs dispensed in 2008, with over $9.5 billion in sales.

And over the last ten years, their use has nearly doubled in the U.S., while the use of psychotherapy by those prescribed antidepressants has declined.

Ten percent of the U.S. population is now being treated with an antidepressant during the course of a year, whereas ten years ago, five percent of the population was being treated with antidepressants.

One exception to the trend involved African-Americans. Ten years ago, 3.6% of African-Americans were on antidepressants and currently that number stands at 4.5%. The reason for this, according to some studies, is that African-Americans have lower rates of depression than whites.

In regards to psychotherapy, ten years ago 31% of people on antidepressants also took part in psychotherapy. Now the number of people both taking antidepressants and participating in psychotherapy is 20%.

There are a number of factors that explain the increasing use of antidepressants. One is that there has been broad and growing acceptance of antidepressant medicine in the U.S..

The other is that over the last ten years, several new antidepressants have come on the market, and they’re big money makers.

Unfortunately, it’s well-known that in mild to moderate depression, psychotherapy is as good as or better than medications. And in the population as a whole, most depression is mild or moderate.

Yet, antidepressant use has skyrocketed while psychotherapy use has declined.

And now new research has shown that half the people who take antidepressants for depression never get relief.

Why? Because the cause of depression has been oversimplified and drugs designed to treat it aim at the wrong target, according to new research from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

A study from the laboratory of long-time depression researcher Eva Redei has toppled two strongly held beliefs about depression. One is that stressful life events are a major cause of depression. The other is that an imbalance in neurotransmitters in the brain triggers depressive symptoms.

Both findings are significant because these beliefs were the basis for developing drugs currently used to treat depression.

Redei, the David Lawrence Stein Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern’s Feinberg School, found powerful molecular evidence that quashes the long-held dogma that stress is generally a major cause of depression. Her new research reveals that there is almost no overlap between stress-related genes and depression-related gene.

And antidepressants treat stress, not depression. “That is one key reason why current antidepressants aren’t doing a great job,” Redei noted.

She said another reason current antidepressants are often ineffective is that they aim to boost neurotransmitters based on the popular molecular explanation of depression, which is that it’s the result of decreased levels of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine. But that’s wrong, Redei said.

“The medications have been focusing on the effect, not the cause,” she said. “That’s why it takes so long for them to work and why they aren’t effective for so many people.”

And so, in our drugged-out nation, we have so many people taking antidepressants, and yet the great percentage of people taking them should not be.

But why should the drug companies care? They’re making healthy profits off of depression.

Drugged-Out Nation

I start a new series as of today, on the topic of Drugs. The pharmaceutical kind, that is. You know, the stuff you go to the drug store to get.

I’m not anti-drugs. There’s a time and place for them. They can save lives. And sometimes they are necessary.

But the problem is that they should be used as a bridge, to be a stopgap measure while a person is working on getting healthier.

Instead, they are the only thing the great majority of people turn to when they are not feeling well.

As a result, drug use is at an epidemic level. In the U.S., per capita drug use is one dozen. Imagine that: on average, every man, woman and child in the U.S. is taking one dozen medications.

And I’m not taking any, so that means someone is picking up the slack for me.

The thing is: if you truly want to be healthy, you need to cut down and then cut out taking any medications.

Because taking medications is one of the surest ways to end up living a High Density Lifestyle, and with it, a very unhealthy and unhappy life.

Here’s the most ironic thing: in the U.S., every child is taught the slogan, “Just say no.” And yet, what kind of a lesson is being taught when the use of prescription medication is so rampant? Where’s the “Just say no” of that?

In 2008, overall drug sales in the U.S. were $291.5 billion. Lipitor, a statin used to control cholesterol, was the top-selling drug, followed by the acid reflux medication Nexium, and Plavix, an anti-platelet agent that reduces the risk of heart attack or stroke.

Sales of cardiovascular and gastroenterology medications, as well as ones that regulate central nervous system issues like seizures, depression, pain and Alzheimer’s, accounted for half of all drug sales in 2008.

Another big seller are antidepressants – they were the third most-popular type of drug dispensed in 2008, with $9.5 billion in sales.

It’s a boom time for the depression business, as long as you’re not a psychotherapist – fewer patients are seeing psychotherapists to resolve their mental health problems. Instead, says Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center, “there’s a greater emphasis on drugs.”

Over 3.5 billion prescriptions a year are written in the U.S. And as a consequence of all those prescriptions written, here’s no surprise – the 4th leading cause of death is medication side effects.

And the outlook for the future? With prescription volume growing exponentially year after year, it’s not good.

This is great news for the drug industry and insurance companies – drug costs are driving premiums through the roof – but not good for the rest of us.

Drugs have direct, powerful effects on human systems. Most of these effects are negative, and taking multiple drugs increases the risks. Psychologically, the growing attitude that drugs are the answer for every ache and angst is destructive for individuals and societies.

With drug advertising everywhere, what is the message being drummed into us and our children: that for every symptom and sensation the solution is a pill?

The drug industry has been the most profitable industry by far year after year, and they have no ethical problem with the totally unethical act of giving financial incentives to doctors to write prescriptions for their products.

And it goes both ways: many doctors have no ethical problem with the totally unethical act of taking financial incentives from drug companies to write prescriptions for their products.

This is a sad state of affairs, and until it changes, we are going to be stuck in the quagmire of High Density Lifestyle living.

Which means we’ll continue to have people getting sicker, with their medical needs and costs draining the system; health care costs and premiums will continue to skyrocket with less coverage and higher co-pays; and businesses will be strangled with the burden of trying to give employees health care coverage.

The answer – along with health care reform – is for people to learn how to be healthier, and one of the most important steps in seeing that happen is the reduction and elimination of prescription drug consumption.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be delving into this more.

Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex – But Were Afraid to Ask

This series on Relationships, Love and Sex ends today by answering all the burning questions you’ve wanted to know for years and years.

To supply these questions, I’ve assembled various experts to discuss a range of topics. Some of this is humorous and some is perfectly serious.

In the above at the top of the page, Woody Allen and company explain what happens during ejaculation.

In the below video, Mary Roach, author of the book Bonk, tells us Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Orgasm.

In the next video below, anthropologist Mary Fisher, an expert on romantic love and author of Anatomy of Love and Why We Love, tells us Why We Love and Cheat.

And in the last video below, Dr. David Schnarch, a marital and sex therapist and author of Intimacy and Desire, talks about Bedroom Stereotypes Debunked.

How Sex Can Make You Healthier

In the last two days, I’ve told you how to increase your sex drive, and discussed the topic of foods that are aphrodisiacs.

Today, I’ll tell you about the health benefits of sex. To get these benefits, you have to have sex on a regular basis.

Fewer colds, less stress, and a healthier heart are just some of the things that are attributed to regular sex of at least once a week.

In regards to colds, according to researchers at Wilkes University in Pennsylvania, sex once or twice a week in winter can boost the immune system and reduce the chances of catching colds and flu.

They found it boosted levels of immunoglobulin A or IGA which binds to organisms that invade the body and then activates the immune system to destroy them.

In regards to stress, during sex your body produces dopamine, a substance that fights stress hormones, endorphins, aka “happiness hormones,” and oxytocin, a desire-enhancing hormone secreted by the pituitary gland.

And in regards to heart health – at least for men – research has shown men who indulge in regular lovemaking of at least twice per week are up to 45 per cent less likely to develop life-threatening heart conditions than men who have sex once a month or less.

In another recent study it was found that everyday sex helped men who had issues with fertility – it appears to help with DNA-damaged sperm.

Meanwhile, In England, the British Government’s National Health Service has started a campaign aimed at schools, telling students that sex everyday keeps the doctor away.

A National Health Service leaflet is advising school pupils that they have a “right” to an enjoyable sex life and that regular intercourse can be good for their cardiovascular health.

The advice appears in guidance circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers, and is intended to update sex education by telling pupils about the benefits of sexual pleasure. For too long, say its authors, experts have concentrated on the need for “safe sex” and loving relationships while ignoring the main reason that many people have sex, that is, for enjoyment.

Alongside the slogan “an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away”, it says: “Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes’ physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?”

So much for the British and their reputation of always maintaining a stiff upper lip.

Sex is also a great form of exercise and can help you lose weight. If you have sex three times a week for 15 minutes you’ll burn about 7, 500 calories in a year.

That’s the equivalent of jogging 200 miles. In addition, heavy breathing raises the amount of oxygen in your cells, and the testosterone produced during sex keeps your bones and muscles strong.

Pain can be relieved through sex. During sex, both male and female bodies produce endorphins, hormones that act as painkillers.

One study showed that during sexual stimulation and especially during orgasm, we don’t feel pain.

For men, frequent sex can benefit the prostate gland. Most of the fluid you ejaculate is secreted by the prostate gland. If you stop ejaculating, the fluid stays in the gland, which tends to swell, causing lots of problems.

Regular ejaculation will wash those fluids out and ensure the well-being of your prostate until old age.

Also for men, sex can be of benefit for erectile dysfunction. Fifty per cent of men older than 40 suffer from erectile dysfunctions and all young men fear the moment when they too may have this happen to them.

An erection keeps the blood flowing through the penile arteries, so the tissue stays healthy. Plus, doctors compare an erection to an athletic reflex: the more you train the more capable you are to perform.

And for women, sex can increase fertility, postpone menopause and relieve PMS symptoms.

Are There Foods That Are Aphrodisiacs?

I’ve been asked, because of yesterday’s article, How to Increase the Sex Drive, how come I didn’t mention the certain foods that are considered aphrodisiacs.

Surely, it was noted to me, they are definite ways to increase the sex drive.

Well, I didn’t talk about foods that might increase the sex drive because the jury is still out on that one.

And that’s because most anyone claiming to know what foods are or aren’t aphrodisiacs, from avocados to zebra tongue, acknowledge that it’s all highly subjective. As Dr. Ruth has famously put it, “the most important sex organ lies between the ears.”

But let’s look at a few anyway.

Chili peppers, for example, quicken the pulse and induce sweating, mimicking the state of sexual arousal, as well as stimulating the release of endorphins, which play a role in sexual pleasure.

Chocolate appears to be highly exaggerated in its abilities. It does contain some chemicals like phenylethylamine, which produce feelings of euphoria. Yet one widely cited study showed that a 130-pound person would have to eat 25 pounds of chocolate in one sitting to significantly alter the mood. And who would be in the mood after eating 19.2 percent of their weight in chocolate?

The scent of doughnuts, on the other hand, have some potential to heighten male sexual response, but only paired with licorice, according to one study. And of course, like chocolate, how many licorice-enhanced doughnuts do you want to eat?

In this same study, female sexual response was heightened by the scent of baby powder and also the combination of Good & Plenty candy with cucumber. Coming in second place in the study was a combination of Good & Plenty and banana nut bread.

This same study also found that the aroma of cherries caused a sharp drop in excitation among women, as did the smell of meat cooked over charcoal.

So ladies, next time you’re barbecuing your meat, make sure you’re also not eating cherries. That would be a double whammy.

Culture and tradition play an important part. Certain foods with aphrodisiac status, like basil, rosemary, saffron, honey, grapes and pine nuts, were coveted for their great libidinal powers by ancient Greeks and Romans and medieval Europeans.

Others, like figs, asparagus and cucumbers, have long been seen as erotic because of their resemblance to the male and female sex organs.

Some ingredients are considered sensual by virtue of how they are eaten, for example, “sharing food from a common platter,” as Dr. Meryl Rosofsky, a doctor and adjunct professor in the department of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, wrote in an entry on aphrodisiacs in the “Encyclopedia of Food and Culture” (Scribner, 2002), or, in the case of oysters, “sucking and slurping seductively.”

Oysters also are considered aphrodisiacs because they contain zinc, which is linked to increased sperm production. However, a zinc-deficient person would have to chow down enormous quantities of oysters before he noticed a difference.

And according to Dr. Rosofsky, garlic contains an amino acid that enhances blood flow and could augment erections.

One thing researchers have found to be an absolute is the strong links between scent, emotion and sexual attraction. Smell can induce emotion that then triggers neurochemical changes. Of all the senses, it is the only one that bypasses the conscious parts of the brain and goes directly to the limbic system, the region responsible for basic memory, motivation and emotion.

Amy Reiley, the author of a recipe book structured like “The Joy of Sex,“ suggests that restaurants wanting to serve truly carnal cuisine go with guacamole, not only because avocados have long been considered aphrodisiacs.

“To me,” Amy Reiley says, “one of the most successful attributes of an aphrodisiac meal are colors, aromas, tastes and textures that wake up the palate and challenge the mind.

“Guacamole, in the ways it is typically served, offers a silky foil to crunchy chips, a cool, slippery and sexy topping for spicy burritos and tamale pies.”

She also likes to use lots of saffron, mint and vanilla, all ingredients she considers aphrodisiacs, and, of course, chili pepper.

And then there’s alchohol, and especially that most sensuous of drinks, wine.

But as Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth, alcohol “provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance.”

How to Increase the Sex Drive

During this discussion on sex, as part of the topic on Relationships, Love and Sex, one of the points I’ve made is that the sexual experience is an intimate one that can help you to be fully human and to live your life to your fullest potential.

There literally and figuratively is nowhere to hide during sex – you are there, warts and all. Which means it can be a profound tool for self-growth and development.

And as I said before, the more healthy and happy a person is, and the more of a Low Density Lifestyle they lead, the better will their sex life be.

That being said, sometimes, for one reason or another, the sex drive is low.

Menopause is one instance. Many women experience a loss of sexual desire and/or the ability to achieve orgasm as they age. One reason is scientifically linked to a waning production of the hormone progesterone, which is instrumental to relaxation.

This is just one of the many reasons why the most important organ for having great sex is the brain: if you can’t relax and turn off your brain, how will you be able to turn yourself on?

Men also are affected by this, because men go through their own type of menopause.

It’s never too late to improve your sex life, because an aging body and an aging brain can be reversed to a younger, more vibrant state. For all of us, sex can be decoded into four distinct phases, and each is directly correlated to one of the four primary brain chemicals, and the hormones associated with them:

***Desire and libido is created in the brain by dopamine; when you are low on dopamine your energy for and interest in sex wanes, as well as your performance

***Arousal is initiated by acetylcholine; when cognitive functioning and internal moisture goes awry and your acetylcholine becomes depleted, you will not be able to focus on sex, let alone maintain your attention and stimulation.

***GABA is your “get started” brain chemical. It controls your anxiety; you will not be able to achieve an orgasm if you are tense. GABA and progesterone are intricately linked.

***Resolution is related to serotonin. If serotonin becomes depleted, your timing is off. You’re either coming to the party too early or too late.

Through eating a more organic, whole-foods, plant-based diet, and cutting out the chemicals and junk; and through exercise and building muscle mass, you can increase the sex drive, no matter your age, by increasing the production of brain chemicals.

A recent study showed that building muscle mass leads to both neurogenesis, the creation of new brain cells, and angiogenesis, the increase in the amount of blood that flows to the brain. And the more new brain cells and amount of blood that flows to the brain, then the more chance that there is that the brain can trigger heightened sensations and arousal during intercourse.

Another way to increase the sex drive is to increase your connection to the spiritual dimension.

New research has found that spirituality has a greater effect on the sex lives of adults than religion, impulsivity, or alcohol.

“I think people have been well aware of the role that religious and spiritual matters play in everyday life for a very long time,” said Jessica Burris, one of the study’s researchers at the University of Kentucky. “But in the research literature, the unique qualities of spirituality — apart from religiousness — are not usually considered.”

According to a research measure known as the Spiritual Transcendence Scale, those qualities are connectedness, universality, and prayer fulfillment. But the data found that of the three, connectedness plays the largest role in spiritual sexuality and leads to more sex with more partners.

“Believing one is intimately tied to other human beings and that interconnectedness and harmony are indispensible may lead one to believe sexual intimacy possesses a divine or transcendent quality in itself,” Burris writes. “In fact, ascribing sacred qualities to sex has been positively associated with positive affective reactions to sex, frequency of sex, and number of sexual partners.”

And in a separate review of studies last year, it was found that sexually unsatisfied women who practiced mindfulness and yoga reported improvements in levels of arousal and desire, as well as better orgasms.

Next Page »