70 is Great!

More people are having at age 70 than 30 years ago, according to a new survey.

Before you get grossed out and say, "Ewww," try to take the long view of the fact that 70-year-olds are having more and better than old people were 30 years ago. Meaning, you’re going to be older someday too, so this is good news.

Swedish researches surveyed 1,500 people at age 70 over a period of 30 years, and reported that as of 2001 (the most recent year available from the survey), more people at that age reported having, and that it was rated as "satisfying" at higher percentages than in earlier surveys.

"Our study shows that a large majority of [the] elderly consider activity and feelings a natural part of late life," said lead author of the study Nils Beckman, from the department of neuropsychiatric epidemiology at the Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology at Gothenburg University in Sweden. "It is thus important that health professionals and others take into consideration, irrespective of age."

In 1971, 52% of married men aged 70 reported being active, compared to 68% in 2001. In married women aged 70, 36% of them in 1971 were active, and 56% in 2001.

Not only that, more respondents of both genders in 2001 said their relationships were "highly satisfying," and more women reported being able to achieve orgasm during intercourse.

Dr. Petra Boynton, a and relationship psychologist at University College in London, told reporters, "We still have this stereotype of elderly people with their bath chairs and canes, staggering around, who couldn't possibly be having - but that isn't the case."

Clearly.

Dr. Boynton added that people who were 70 years old in 2001 were in their 30s during the 1960s and the "revolution" that took place during that decade. Other studies have shown that people who have satisfying lives in their youth are more likely to continue with healthy lives as they get older.

Another contributing factor to the reports of satisfaction is the fact that divorce is more acceptable now that it would have been in the early 1970s, so more people are with partners who are truly compatible.

Other factors to consider: the introduction of such drugs as Viagra and Cialis, which treat erectile dysfunction in men but have also been used (usually off –label) to treat lowered libido in women as well.

But experts say that while drugs like Viagra may have helped, it is likely a combination of all of the factors, including people taking better care of themselves, freedom of partner choice, and a more open attitude about that has contributed to the ah, upswing.

"Probably the addressing of physiological problems with the development of medications like Viagra explain some - but not all - of the upward activity trend," said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor and researcher at the Center on Aging at the University of Chicago, to reporters. "But the most important point being made here is that when it comes, clearly it doesn't matter what age you are. At least most men and many women still have a desire to have it as they age."

But it’s grossing out their kids. People, regardless of age, have generally felt squeamish when talking about, or even considering, the fact that their parents have (some don’t want to fathom the deed happening even once). Even adults, considering the lives of their 70-year-old parents, don’t tend to relish the discussion. "Before we celebrate," warns well-known sociologist at the University of Washington Pepper Schwartz, "let me assure you that young people, while celebrating the occasional 'cougar,' still can't bear to think of their parents as being ."

"TMI! TMI!" (translation: Too Much Information) screamed one blogger’s comments in response to the survey. "That’s nice, just don’t videotape it please," was another.

These typical reactions are one of the reasons, say experts on and aging, why the topic of activity at older ages is considered a somewhat taboo topic.

Uneasy positions

After 1,700 years, the Kamasutra - even a scholarly version - has to be wrapped in a brown paper bag. It's been available in Sanskrit for 1,700 years and it's 129 years since Sir Richard Burton blackened his name by translating it into English.

It's been available in Sanskrit for 1,700 years and it's 129 years since Sir Richard Burton blackened his name by translating it into English. Although many generations of grateful schoolboys went on to read it in the dark, it was not until the 1960s that the Kamasutra became the sort of book you could leave on your coffee table. But even then, it was more of a fashion statement than a sacred text. The pictures of the odd, almost impossible positions were of greater interest than Vatsyayana's high-minded instructions. We in the west had a lot of unlearning to do before we could stop sniggering, and, like Vatsyayana's Virgin Bride, we were not to be rushed.

But we're all grown-ups now, aren't we? That's what Oxford World's Classics is hoping, anyway. Next week it is bringing out the "first ever accurate English" version of the "most famous book on ever published". The new translation is by Wendy Doniger, a historian of religions at the University of Chicago, and Sudhir Kakar, a psychoanalyst. They have worked hard to be faithful to the "original tone" of the book and to use "clear, vivid, frank English". Theirs is a serious scholarly enterprise.

Sadly, Burton's version was not. His Victorian and orientalist pruderies got the better of him. He prettified the prose and exoticised the acts he described by referring to the male and female organs as the lingam and the yoni. These are Sanskrit words but the latter does not appear in the original, and Vatsyayana uses the former infrequently, preferring the term jaghana, which can be translated as pelvis, genitals or "between the legs". Burton's translation of the word for was "eunuch" and wherever there were women's voices, he muffled them. So when the original suggested that a woman slapped too hard might cry out: "Stop!", "Let go!" and "Enough!" Burton said: "When the woman is not accustomed to striking, she continually utters words expressive of prohibition, sufficiency or desire of liberation."

Liberated as we now are from his moralistic mistranslations, we can appreciate the text as historical document, and ponder its curious injunctions with wry scholarly smiles. Did you know that fellatio is best practised not with wives but with those of the "third nature" - Vatsyayana's expression? Or that with someone else's wife is only right if you are sure you would die unless you have her? Were you aware that the ideal lover bathes daily and every four days has his beard and moustache trimmed into three points? The Kamasutra is not a manual, and not just a book of etiquette. It's an attempt to civilise, to dignify - to acknowledge the importance of pleasure while preaching the virtue of restraint.

Or, as Tony might say, balancing rights and responsibilities. Learning how to have fun with people you really like, in the context of a stable relationship. Developing your confidence. Honing your emotional literacy skills. In extremis, having the courage to say: "Stop! Let go! Enough!" It is not too far-fetched to see the caring, sharing, relationship-stressing education programmes now on offer in most of the nation's schools as owing everything to the Kamasutra. If nothing else, this theory gives me faith in human nature. It suggests that not all of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s read the Kamasutra solely for the smut.

But if my Monday-morning visit to my local Waterstone's is anything to go by, the battle for enlightenment is not yet won. You should have seen the looks when I asked for "the new Kamasutra" in a normal voice. The pale, almost gasping assistant waved me in the direction of the shelf marked "Health". What possessed them to classify the art of life with depression and herbal medicine? After I had found a handsome, coffee-table Kamasutra but not the tasteful, academic edition I wanted, the assistant redirected me to the shelf marked.

Here, among the manuals offering to teach me how to come fast and faster, I found a floral tribute called Kama Sutra for Women along with a hardboiled pocket edition on KS Technique. But still no trace of the highbrow classic. "It's the new translation I'm after," I explained. "The Oxford World's Classic." I hoped this would reassure the mother behind me. "Let's try again," the assistant said. "It's one word - Kamasutra," I said. The mother scooped up her toddler and rushed off. But now at last I was vindicated. The assistant had found the title in the system. "It arrived three days ago. But it could be anywhere. It's so hard to know where it belongs."

So that's the point we've reached. Forty years of raging revolution and we still can't figure it out. We can talk and talk about the mind-body problem and the importance of seeing the two as one, but we continue to stock them on separate shelves. We say we wish we could see as part of life, but when we act on this wish in a bookstore, we also wish for a brown paper bag. The prospect of as-noble-enterprise is still so terrifying that we can't even talk about it unless we label it "Other" and view it from the safe side of the east-west divide.