Credits: www.Pixel.la Free Stock Photos / Wikimedia Commons — CC0.
Published on April 15, 2026, Three Nights a Week, by journalist Pauline Verduzier, revives a question that goes beyond private life. How did the average number of sexual encounters in a couple become a social norm? In April, the book’s media coverage refocused the debate. It centered it on its concrete effects: guilt, performance, reducing sexuality to penetration, and, at times, blurring consent.
The Average Number of Sexual Encounters in a Couple Is Not a Rule
The starting point is editorial. In her essay published by Grasset, Pauline Verduzier takes aim at a phrase that has become deeply embedded in the romantic imagination. According to this idea, a healthy couple should have sex two or three times a week. The back cover presents this pace as an implicit frequency that has been widely internalized. It also promises to trace its sources, uses, and political as well as intimate effects.
The book’s media coverage in mid-April gave immediate visibility to this thesis. In HuffPost, Pauline Verduzier describes a diffuse pressure coming less from partners themselves than from outside. According to her, this idea is absorbed over the years until sexual regularity becomes a supposed sign of a marriage working well. Doctissimo follows the same line, emphasizing how an apparently ordinary number can turn into an implicit standard.
The heart of the problem is this: an average is not a rule. It describes varied situations at a given moment, but it says nothing about what should suit all couples. By repeating it as a goal, public debate shifts a vague indicator into a moral register: loving each other would mean “keeping up the pace.” The couple then becomes a space of permanent evaluation rather than a place for intimate negotiation. This logic also intersects with broader debates about toxic masculinity. It also echoes the performance scripts that still weigh on emotional life.
From Statistic to Moral Norm, a Slow and Highly Mediated Construction
According to the book description and interviews with the author, this pace does not come from a settled scientific truth. It is part of a longer history. Doctors in the 19th century, for example, could defend the idea of regular sex within marriage as a factor of balance and health. This genealogy is taken up in several articles published around the book’s release. At this stage, however, the full chain of historical sources behind the number remains difficult to reconstruct in detail.
What can be established more firmly, however, is the mechanism of accretion. A rough benchmark circulates. It is repeated in practical articles, relationship columns, sex-coaching content, and then in pop culture. Each time it is repeated, the number loses some of its context and gains authority. It is no longer presented as a debatable average, but as a desirable horizon. That is how an indicator becomes an emotional reference point and, for some, a verdict.
Recent data from the survey Sexuality in France: The Context, published by Inserm in 2024, point in a much more nuanced direction. The study shows a decline in sexual activity with a partner since 2006. It also notes a drop in the frequency of sex over the previous four weeks, including among cohabiting couples. Finally, it shows that sex does not disappear for all that. It continues into older ages and follows very different trajectories depending on age, sex, and relationship status. In other words, reality is varied, not standardized.
The Inserm survey adds one decisive point: the sexual repertoire has diversified. Masturbation, oral sex, and other practices are reported more often than before. That further weakens the idea that one can read a couple’s health from counting only one type of sexual encounter.
The Real Blind Spot: Penetration Remains the Implicit Unit of Measure
This is one of the clearest contributions of the debate revived by Pauline Verduzier. When public discourse talks about sexual frequency, it often means penetration without saying so. In HuffPost, the author explains that this norm has long been thought of within a heterosexual married-couple framework. Vaginal penetration served as the yardstick. Doctissimo makes the same critique: behind the number, the definition of “sex” remains narrow.
The Inserm findings point in the same direction. The institute itself notes that the notion of “sexual intercourse” still mostly refers to a scenario involving vaginal or anal penetration. Yet practices have broadened. This gap is central. It means that part of intimacy remains invisible in the measurements, and then in the media commentary that turns those measurements into prescriptions.
The problem is therefore not only quantitative. It is also symbolic. By making penetration the unit that counts, the norm ranks gestures, desires, and forms of closeness. Talks in bed, caresses, and moments of tenderness are pushed into a blind spot. It also leaves little room for the idea that a couple can live without sex. The relationship is then quickly judged deficient. Yet it is precisely this narrowing that later makes it possible to present some couples as insufficient or failing.
When the Number Produces Guilt, Performance, and Sometimes Coercion
An intimate norm is never neutral. By setting an imagined pace, it pushes each person to locate themselves: are we “within the average,” behind, lacking? This comparison logic is one of the most powerful drivers of guilt. Periods without sex, mismatched desire, fatigue, illness, and the postpartum period then stop being ordinary realities. They become warning signs for the relationship.
Sexologist Gianpaolo Furgiuele, cited by Doctissimo, warns against this transformation of pleasure into a numerical target. Once a frequency becomes an expectation, desire risks being replaced by performance. The supposed benefit of a fulfilling sex life then backfires on the partners: instead of easing life together, the norm adds pressure.
This is also where the issue touches on consent. Pauline Verduzier explains, in several media appearances, that pressure to maintain frequency can lead to unwanted sex within the couple. The Inserm survey provides useful context here. In this group, 43.7% of women say they have often or sometimes had sex to please their partner. They also say they do not really want it themselves. Among men, that share is 23.4%. These figures do not by themselves prove a mechanical link with the myth of “three times a week.” On the other hand, they show that a significant part of marital sex remains shaped by accommodation, internalized coercion, or mismatched desire. The issue thus intersects with other public warnings about sexual violence. It also points to the difficulty of recognizing what unfolds quietly in ordinary relationships.
So precision is essential. The current debate does not allow us to claim that one media number would, by itself, cause violence. What it does illuminate, however, is a normative climate in which sex can become a demanded proof more than a shared experience. That shift—from desire to duty—is what the book seeks to make visible.
What the Debate Says About Our Time: Less a Couple Crisis Than a Measurement Crisis
The immediate success of this topic says something broader. In a world saturated with advice, benchmarks, and indicators, private life no longer escapes the logic of performance. Couples, too, are expected to produce proof: good communication, good libido, good frequency. The number has the advantage of simplicity, but that simplicity is misleading. It reassures media formats, not necessarily the people concerned.
In that sense, the strength of Pauline Verduzier’s book is not that it offers a new, softer, or more modern norm. It is that it shifts the question. The right question is not “how often,” but “who benefits from this average becoming a test?” Read as emotional truth, this average sustains sexual pressure within the couple. It also fuels doubts, misunderstandings, and unnecessary judgments.
The debate opened in April 2026 ultimately reminds us of an obvious point that is often overlooked. A statistical average says nothing about the quality of a bond, the level of love, or the fairness of a relationship. When it turns into a norm, it stops illuminating reality and starts weighing on it.