I don't believe so;I wouldn't be in this profession if I thought my role was to encourage people, especially women, to have 'good enough' sex. That doesn't seem to be the view of some of my colleagues though.
I was stunned then to hear approaches that effectively said:
“Women aren’t very sexual, they’re like frozen chickens in bed (actual quote), so it’s important we don’t get their expectations up and lead them into thinking they can have better sex.”
After I’d picked my jaw up off the floor, and pinched myself to make sure I hadn’t somehow time-travelled back 100 years or so, I asked the speaker the question:
“Agreed, many women aren’t as libidinous as men on the desire side of sex, but since women have the potential to be more sexual than men on the response side of sex, surely we should be informing women of their potential, so as to inspire them, as well as to inform them and their partners how to get her there?”
“No,” was the firm answer, “we should not be raising their expectations.” (In a private conversation after she then chided me that I was using ‘soft’ science. I was tempted to reply that at least it was science, not opinion, but politely didn’t.)
I really was appalled. Imagine if we told women in other areas of life that 'good enough is good enough' in relation to their lower incomes, lower social status, etc: "Just put up with it dearie, don't expect too much, you're only a woman"
Or if we went to a financial adviser and were told: "Just accept the amount of money you have, don't strive for more; and I won't tell you how to be more financial anyway because I don't want you to have high expectations"
The keynote speaker, Marty Klein, stressed that we must not continue to make sex an 'exception' to everything in life, and this is a clear example of sex being made an exception of: we (especially women) can strive in all other areas of life, but not sexually.
Could you remind me exactly which century we're living in!