The Intimacy After-Action Review
Review what worked, what hurt, and what to change outside the bedroom
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 97%
Rubin compares sexual communication with the planning and retrospective conversations used by a podcast team. The couple talks when they are not actively having sex, asks what worked and what did not, identifies something they may want to try, and revisits the result later. The mechanism is psychological safety plus iteration: moving feedback outside the high-pressure moment lowers performance pressure, curiosity replaces mind-reading, and one mutually agreed change creates new evidence. Rubin also stresses that libido differences or physiological barriers often do not produce a villain. Reframing the situation as both partners against a shared problem reduces shame and makes medical or therapeutic support easier to discuss. A third party, such as a couples or sex therapist, may help when the words are difficult to find.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Silence does not prove that both partners are satisfied
- 02Sexual feedback is easier outside the sexual moment
- 03Curiosity works better than assumed expertise
- 04Many conflicts have no bad person
- 05Partners can work together against a shared problem
How to run it
- 1
Move outside the moment
Choose a private, calm time when neither person is naked, initiating sex, or rushing. State that the goal is mutual understanding rather than a performance review.
Pro tip Ask permission to have the conversation before beginning it.
Watch out Do not spring the review on a partner immediately after a vulnerable experience.
- 2
Start with curiosity
Ask what great sex means to each person and what they enjoy. Do not assume either partner already has complete language or knowledge about their body.
Pro tip Use open questions and allow 'I don't know yet' as an answer.
- 3
Review the last experience
Ask what went well, what did not, and whether anything felt painful, pressured, or disconnected. Listen without immediately defending intent.
Pro tip Reflect back what you heard before proposing a solution.
Watch out Pain warrants appropriate clinical attention rather than persuasion to continue.
- 4
Remove the villain
Separate the people from the problem when no one has violated consent or trust. Treat different libidos, incomplete education, or a biological issue as something to understand together.
Pro tip Use the phrase 'us against the problem' when blame starts to rise.
Watch out This reframe must not erase cheating, coercion, deception, or abuse.
- 5
Choose one experiment
Agree on one mutually wanted adjustment, question, or source of professional support. Define consent, boundaries, and how either person can stop.
Pro tip Keep the first experiment small enough to discuss honestly afterward.
- 6
Run the next review
Return to the conversation after the experiment and compare expectations with experience. Keep what helped, change what did not, and seek third-party support if the discussion remains stuck.
Pro tip Schedule the check-in so it is not lost to avoidance.
In the wild
Illustrative example: one partner has been avoiding sex because penetration hurts, while the other has interpreted the distance as rejection. In a calm check-in, they name the pain, stop assigning blame, and agree to pause painful activity while seeking a clinician with relevant expertise.
→ The couple replaces a character judgment with support and a concrete next step.
Illustrative example: during a weekend walk, partners ask what each enjoyed recently and what they are curious about. They choose one mutually wanted change, state boundaries, and agree to discuss it again the following week without requiring any particular outcome.
→ Feedback becomes an iterative conversation rather than a delayed bombshell.
Common mistakes
Holding the review during sex
Rubin explicitly recommends discussing sex outside the active sexual moment, when pressure and vulnerability are lower.
Assuming silence means satisfaction
The host and guest describe partners hiding pain, insecurity, and dissatisfaction despite long relationships.
Forcing a guilty party
A mismatch can be real without either partner being bad; blame can obscure the solvable problem.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for consenting partners who want a structured, low-pressure conversation about preferences and problems.
Not ideal for
It is not safe as a joint exercise where coercion, abuse, retaliation, or lack of consent is present; individual support comes first.
From the transcript
“This should happen not when you're naked in the bedroom actively having sex.”
“What went well? What didn't go well? Do you ever want to try this?”
“It was me and her against the problem.”
From the episode
Dr Rachel Rubin: "I'm Filled With Rage!" Your Doctor Was Never Taught About Women's Bodies!