Sexuality is playing and pursuing
pleasure. Indeed, for adults it is the most enjoyable play and if you don’t
agree then you don’t know sexuality, or you don’t know it well. However,
sexuality is the playful pursuit of pleasure that takes place between two
people in a specific and intense encounter. It is not possible for this to
happen with anyone and, for this reason, it is also an opportunity for
intimacy. Some clarifications need to be made.
Sexuality can also be experienced in
solitude and is still playful and pleasurable, but it is a last resort, when a
sexual relationship is not possible. It can also be practiced in public or in a
group, but in these cases it is (unconsciously) exploited to avoid something,
to demonstrate something or to state something. Such exploitation of sexuality
represents a psychological defense, which disturbs pleasure and gets in the way
of intimacy. In this respect, morality and promiscuity are two sides of the
same coin.
Sex is always an intimate experience. A one-night stand, even when paid
for, also has a certain level of intimacy (pleasurable or regrettable). This
does not mean that whoever is having sex must always be aware of the intimacy
that he or she is experiencing. Even in the stable relationships of couples,
intimacy can be low and in general these disasters are not even recognized. If
emotion is not blocked or distorted, there is pleasurable intimacy in one-night
stands, even if not intense, which involves a little joy for the contact experienced
and a bit of sadness for “what is missing”. With prostitution the sadness is
often hidden, but it is simply enormous for both parties. In couple’s
relationships where intimacy is deep, the joy of this harmony intensifies the
pleasure of the playfulness of sex and the pleasure of physical contact. Satisfying
and really intimate sexual relationships are rare and human beings do not
usually cry over this, simply because they do not realize. Normally people find
it difficult to even realistically imagine the playful aspect of sex, the
pleasure of sex and the many aspects of intimacy. The fear of sorrow and tears
lead people to limit their own feelings, expressive freedom and also the
capacity to desire and imagine the possibility of fulfillment. If sensitivity
is blocked and desire is weak, the frustration will not be perceived as such.
In these pages I will not write
about everyday sexuality and intimacy, but about their complete expression,
corresponding to the potential of human beings. Even if I do not believe I can
facilitate any change, I hope to be able to stimulate useful reflections.
The difficulty of having a
reasonable discourse on sex comes from the fact that the theme is always
examined with one of two slants. The first (moral and moralizing) is aimed at
defining what is considered acceptable and unacceptable based on principles
believed to be absolute or some cultural traditions believed to be
unchangeable. The second (“scientific”) is aimed at what is considered “healthy”
or “pathological” in sexuality even if, in reality, it is aimed at
acknowledging what fits into the prevailing cultural norms. In fact, the
sexological evaluations often change as these norms change and not following
sensational “discoveries”. While physicians and biologists construct empirical
theories and exchange ideas on the basis of the observation of methods or
factual observations when they do not agree, sexuality academics basically
construct “conceptions” and therefore they can state (almost) everything and
deny (almost) everything with the same legitimacy. Therefore, prevailing
“scientific” ideas depends on the cultural climate of the time.
I think that a good theory of
sexuality should not take into account sexual behaviour in relation to norms
born out of particular traditions and not even in relation to statistical
norms. A good theory of sexuality should compare sexual behaviour with people’s
sexual potential. And I am referring to all the relevant possibilities
together: the intensity of physical satisfaction and the intensity of the
emotional relationship with the partner. If sexual behaviour produces modest or
limited satisfaction and does not activate strong emotional involvement with
the partner, it is my opinion that it should be considered repressive sexual behavior. Not “sinful”, “unnatural” or
“pathological”, but repressive: it can be completely normal and even culturally
legitimate, but it tends to limit the expression of individual potential rather
than liberating it.
Sex works best if it produces a
“high” (a temporary loss of conscious control during orgasm) and a strong
physical release of tension accumulated in the stimulation phase. One theory
that was fundamental in my education, at least for certain important aspects,
was that of Wilhelm Reich. I have to recognize this debt because Reich at least
attempted to develop a real theory of sexuality. In my opinion he did not
succeed in his attempt and this is why I abandoned his energetic-biologistic
frame of reference many years ago, despite sharing his basic understanding of
some facts. In practice I saved the core of Reich’s conception of sexuality and
I found a more suitable language for a clear and coherent discussion in other
theories (or in a selection of other theories).
Sexuality, in the broad sense of the
word, includes all types of behaviour through which we try to satisfy desires
relating to a particular area of intimacy. Unfortunately, in childhood,
intimacy (in the broadest sense) is not experienced in a safe and satisfactory
way and this fact leads, in later years, to strong tendencies towards avoiding
any type of intimacy or searching for partial or distorted (but reassuring)
modes of intimacy, also in the area of sexuality.
Children do not have one simple
desire, but instead a real need to feel loved and accepted. This does not
normally happen or it happens in an unsatisfactory way and this in turn prevents
children from feeling satisfied and feeling safe. And so they develop
attitudes, behaviour and convictions to make themselves less vulnerable. Being
too young to process the sorrow connected with negative interpersonal
experiences, they are only able to limit their own emotions. Carrying out these
operations unconsciously they continue, even into adulthood, to “protect” themselves
from the frustrations which by now could be easily tolerated and,
paradoxically, as a result of such limitations and distortions of their
emotions they do not act in appropriate way for reaching real contentment, in
intimacy.
The pursuit for sexual pleasure with
a partner, if not inhibited by more or less conscious alternative goals,
develops in various ways which fit into a well-defined general pattern: feeling
desire; showing desire for another person; beginning to feel pleasure in
physical contact; the “play” stage in which physical stimulation increases;
reaching the point in which stimulation must be released, and then from sexual
intercourse to the orgasm and therefore an intense physical and motor release
of accumulated tension and finally, after the orgasm, the sensation of physical
satisfaction and deep intimacy with the other person.
Often there is no distinction between
a climax of pleasure and an orgasm, but such a distinction is important because
only an orgasm indicates at a quantitative and qualitative level the complete
release of arousal and the arrival at complete intimacy with the partner. In a climax
one has a pleasurable release of the stimulation accumulated in the preliminary
phase and the erotic “play” phase, but this release is “localized”, meaning it
only affects the genitals. On the other hand, in an orgasm there are
involuntary movements and feelings regarding the whole body which are
accompanied by a temporary alteration (or “loss”) of waking consciousness. In
practice, during the orgasm a person “lets him or herself go” to his or her own
feelings and to the partner: he or she renounces control and “trusts” both his
or her own body and partner. During the orgasm, stimulation arriving at its peak
and being felt in the genitals is not released in a local relaxation, but with
the liberation of all the muscles in the body: a wave moves over the whole body
spreading from the genitals upwards and finally down to the legs. The pelvis
moves in harmony with the rest of the body and the person lets him or herself
go through this wave until he or she feels completely relaxed and satisfied. In
a climax maximum stimulation is transformed into the calm, while in an orgasm
the calm is reached via violent and intense and yet sweet and harmonious
liberation of all the body’s muscles. An orgasm liberates the self in a
trusting openness to the other person. The climax is “permitted” while the
orgasm is “liberated”. The orgasm of women involves the clitoris but is aroused
deeper in the vagina.
The difference between climax and
orgasm is not only about the final part of the sexual experience, because it
depends upon the quality of the entire experience, starting from the previous
stages. If the initial desire is weak or the arousal is not intense, orgasm is
not possible. This means that if there is no real passion it is difficult to
arrive at a “technically” acceptable conclusion. However, passion depends on
many factors: not only on the partner being really desired, but also on the
fact that person feels free to express him or herself with that partner. All
the embarrassment, fear, calculations, interests in the results of
“performance” over the experience, get in the way of the growing arousal. In
some cases they prevent the completion of the experience, but even if they do
not have such frustrating effects, they make the stages leading up to orgasm “tepid” rather than “arousing” and they limit the
psychological and physical qualities of the whole experience. In fact, in these
cases there is no real sexual interest and sexual desire comes second to other
desires (essentially defensive desires of being able to “earn” acceptance).
The desirable and possible mood
after sex involves the gratitude towards the partner who has been both the
sexual “object” of his or her own desire and a participating and embracing
subject.
Obviously the orgasm can be
“prepared” by any preliminary erotic game (in a climate of complicity and
reciprocal acceptance), but it cannot be “liberated” in pregenital
relationships. The orgastic movements (both for men and women) are not possible
in oral and anal relationships where they can easily cause or provoke pain. In
individual or reciprocal masturbation the orgastic movements are impeded less,
but even in these situations the reciprocity in the arousal and the intimacy of
embrace is lacking. For this, even if at times couples can understandably
desire experiences of sex or love without the aim of release of tension in the
genitals, the marked preference for sexual games over sexual intercourse
suggests the dominance of defensive desires (not sexual, but sexualized) over
desires for sexual fulfillment.
In other words, the lack of interest
in or the fear of genital intercourse (in women or men), however it is
rationalized, constitutes a repression of the orgasm. Such a reading allows the
exclusion of both the moral assessments and those based on the comparison
between health and illness, because each of them superimposes a pre-constructed
model onto the deep understanding of pursued objectives.
The path which leads to orgasm is identical in males and females. In this
sense, equality between the sexes is a fact. The “typical” characteristics
attributed to the “female sensitivity” or “manhood” are prejudices and reflect
the repressive tendencies culturally addressed in different ways to men and
women.
Sexuality is an active pursuit for
pleasure both for men and women. The male aggression in “penetration” fully
corresponds to the female aggression in “taking” and the female tenderness to
embrace fully corresponds to the male tenderness to search for embrace. Also at
other levels some real misunderstandings have become common place. There is no
reason to believe that women are more emotionally involved in sexual
relationships than men are. The prevalence of (distorted) sensitivity in women
and the emotional detachment in men is just a culturally (repressively)
generated habit, but in these cases both women and men limit their sexual and
emotional potential.
Even the idea of the “man as the
hunter” and the woman as anchored in the home life is without foundation. In
the same reading, it should be demystified that the maternal instinct stops
sexual desire when children arrive or that “male social relations” make men
more attracted by work (or by a “fling”) than by the family environment, or
that the menopause or andropause stop sexual desire and the capacity for sexual
enjoyment.
What limits the expression of
individual potential is fear of deep emotions and in particular fear of sorrow.
Early sorrowful experiences in infancy lead children to fear the expression of
all desires in interpersonal relationships. In adult life, certain cultural
myths can be used in order to rationalize fear and to favour certain
manifestations of (self)repression, but these myths are only the surface of the
problem. In fact, when the problem does not exist, males and females act as
they feel and therefore try to look for pleasure and intimacy in the most
intense way, because they are not “preoccupied” with alternative objectives.
We can distinguish between the
experience of having sex and that of making love by taking into account the benevolence
felt towards the sexual partner. I believe we can liberate ourselves from many
misunderstandings if we think of love as being synonymous with feeling benevolence.
In this way the concept could be applied in various environments and could
relate to offspring, friends, nature, animals etc. and not only partners.
The act of simply having sex,
without a strong emotional tie, is nevertheless included within the sphere of
intimacy and requires esteem (i.e. a physical and psychological appreciation of
the partner) and a minimum fondness (i.e. a bit of love). It is not possible to
have sex in a satisfying way with people who are unpleasant or with whom there
is tension. Unfortunately this happens in many cases, but in such cases, in my
opinion, sex is had for non sexual reasons (to not miss the opportunity, to not
feel “alone”, etc.).
There can also be unsatisfying
sexual experiences (unfinished) and partially satisfying (with climax but
without orgasm) even if it is sex with someone who is loved. In this case love
is present, but it is “complicated” (and limited) by unresolved personal issues
or relationship problems. The best thing to do is not have sex unless you
really want it, because if you have unresolved personal issues, or if in that
moment there are misunderstandings or distance with your partner, you cannot
really be available. The idea that making love helps in getting over problems
is a poorly founded idea. Personal or interpersonal problems ought to be
resolved with clarification at an emotional level.
Both in having sex for fun and for
love (looking for physical fulfillment and intimacy with a loved person) it is
necessary to feel sexual arousal and desire sexual fulfillment. It seems
important to me to distinguish between two possible ways of being aroused.
Again, I will not make a moral or “psychopathological” distinction, I will bear
in mind only the expression of personal potential in sexual relationships..
Every body is made up of parts, but
also has its specificity as a “whole”. In the body of men and women, some parts
are obviously more “erogenous” than others, but there is a clearly defined
difference between the pathways of arousal focused on the parts and those
which, although including stimulation from various parts of the body, are
focused on the whole body of the partner. I am referring to the physical
pathways of arousal and I am not in anyway contrasting a “mental” arousal with
a “purely physical” arousal. Sexual arousal is physical and inevitably linked
to what you think of and feel for your partner. I am simply clarifying that
physical arousal can be completely focused on one part of the body or can be
“diffused”. The more the arousal is “partial” or “focused” on one part of the
body, the weaker the overall path of arousal. It is not only a quantitative
difference but also qualitative. The more one person is attracted by a part of
the partner’s body, the more he or she is “taken away” by his or her (very
private) fantasy. The more a person is attracted by his or her partner’s body
in its whole, the more he or she is “open” to the physical and emotional
contact with the partner. It is inevitable that certain parts of the body will
be caressed and kissed more: it is not often that elbows are erogenous for men
and women and everyone knows which parts of men and women’s bodies are
generally more attractive. This is not under discussion. What I want to
highlight is that the pathway of arousal (in men and women) can proceed from
the parts to the whole or remain “entangled in the details”. In this second
possibility, non-sexual and defensive fantasies are inevitably active; they
limit the arousal pathway and therefore reaching orgasm. They can also allow
for a pleasurable conclusion to sex, but they limit the expression of personal
potential both at a level of pleasure and at a level of intimacy.
The capacity for sexual fulfillment
is dependent on the capacity not to fear intense emotions and in particular the
capacity not to fear the development of sorrow. Paradoxically, for this reason
to have joyful and fulfilling sexual experiences requires being familiar with
crying.
I am obviously not claiming that
crying has to accompany sexual experiences, but simply that the more open you
are to crying the more sexually liberated you are. Nor am I claiming that
“whining” is liberating at an emotional level. Liberating crying is a physical
psychological experience that is usually feared and blocked. Even in films you
rarely see scenes where someone is crying “authentically”, and if the viewers
do not notice something wrong then they are clearly used to not crying or
crying badly.
When it is said that children cry
and adults do not cry, it is nonsense. Only adults can cry, since they have the
capacity to develop an internal dialogue and arrive at physically expressing
and welcoming sorrow. Children can only cry in the arms of an adult who is able
to hold them. When children are
distressed they look for a parent and do not cry alone. Children who often
“cry” alone are really “whining”, or rather expressing rage in a complicated
way.
In fact children generally feel
sorrow in relation to parents and for this reason the expression of sorrow is
not accepted. They therefore learn to
not cry, or to whine, or to avoid emotional contact with sorrowful situations. When
they become adults, they tend not to cry or they cry rarely (only when the
social context justifies the “rule being broken”).
As all defensive attitudes are
basically defenses from sorrow (constructed in childhood but maintained,
unconsciously, in adulthood), the fear of suffering and crying limits our capacity
for emotional contact in general.
Even at a physiological level the
defenses towards sadness and crying have unfortunate repercussions on sex. When
we are crying we feel a pain “in our heart” and we feel a wave come up to the
eyes. It washes over them and then goes down shaking the body in sobbing. In
orgasm we feel a pleasurable arousal in the genitals and when we sense the need
to release this stimulation, we surrender to orgasm which shakes our whole
body. In orgasm the release of stimulation starts from the genitals, rises and
goes down through the whole body more than once. In practice the wave of
sobbing is very similar to that of orgasm, even if the moods are different in
each case. It is worth mentioning, however, that even if the crying is painful
and orgasm is pleasurable, in both cases there is the need to let oneself go.
The fear of crying activates chronic muscle hypertonia and this “shell”
inevitably interferes with the liberation of tension in orgasm. Unfortunately,
defenses are not selective: in blocking sorrow they block everything.
Many people (in particular women)
exhibit an “erotic charge”, in an exaggerated manner, which does not in the
least correspond to actual intentions for having sex. These people “want to be
wanted” but they do not want to have sex. On the other hand, other people have
sex when they can, but with little pleasure, because they try to demonstrate
their virility/femininity. Other people have sex mainly to not feel alone. When
people give sexual signals or have sex, their aim might be or might not be sex.
These and other examples can illustrate the fact that the search for sexual
fulfillment is only possible when basic emotional situations have been
“pacified”.
The freedom to have sex and, with
the right person, to make love, constitutes a privileged sphere of
self-expression, interpersonal contact and fulfillment. Specific sexual
problems do not exist. What do exist are emotional and therefore interpersonal
problems which limit or disturb sexuality.
If today’s children are accepted,
welcomed and protected at an emotional level, they will become adults free from
uncertainty, inhibitions or ambivalence of a sexual nature, The best “sex
education” for children is a good treatment of their emotional needs. We do not
only need to free ourselves from habits and prejudices, but we especially need
to free ourselves from our fear and emotional conflicts.