Month: December 2020

Professionals many times look for a specific influence or conditioning that predetermines sexual failure, and in most instances, it can be identified if the delving goes deep enough.

Instances of neither positive nor negative dominance by either biophysical or psychosocial influence structures. If a woman has never established a close juxtaposition between the biophysical and psychosocial systems of influence because she has lived in a protective vacuum, she will not have been stimulated to develop her own sexual value system and therefore will tend to neutralize most input material of sexual implication.

The case history

below is presented to emphasize the fact that there need be no dominant influence (either positive or negative) in the development of primary orgasmic dysfunction.

Mrs. B was the only child of parents in their thirties when she was born. Both parents, teachers in a small, church-oriented college, were more restrained by the habit of life-style and their own relationship than by religious influence.

The child did not develop as an extension of their presumed intellectual interests but became the “doll” whom they dressed exquisitely, handled little, and disregarded emotionally (as she perceived her upbringing). There was no real source of female identification, no opportunity to establish a sexual value system.

All decisions on her behalf included the theoretically objective presentation of two alternatives, but parental, primarily mother’s preference was emphasized. Mrs. B had no recollection of making a definitive decision of her own until her sophomore year at college when she chose for a husband a relatively older man (he was in graduate school and seven years her senior). With this one decision, she again relinquished all opportunity for self-determination.

They married upon his graduation at the end of her junior year in college. His assumption of total authority in marriage appeared more by default than demand and continued through 11 years of marriage, during which two children were born.

During the first years of the marriage, Mrs. B maintained a complacent attitude toward her sexual role within the marriage. However, in the last six years of the marriage, she developed an intense desire to realize full sexual expression for herself and greater sexual pleasure for her husband.

Husband behavior

In this latter period her husband’s behavior, though warm and protective, was highly restrained in sexual as well as other facets of the marital relationship. He participated in the Foundation’s program with complete willingness, although with little concept of what or how anything in the marriage could be changed.

Reared by an older aunt and uncle he had learned little, by the direction of observation, of the potential for human interaction on a personal level. However, he fortunately had not been given any primarily negative indoctrination.

Mrs. B’s enthusiasm for an effective sexual relationship within the marriage was and still is defined as real, but she has been unable to overcome anesthesia to any sensory perception that she can relate to erotic arousal. She has been unable to establish sensory reference within which to develop and relate her well-defined affection and regard for her husband.

The two contributing systems of influence on sexual function:

Remained in displaced positioning one from the other. To date, she has the demonstrated-insufficient emotional or intellectual capacity to establish a symbiotic state between her two systems of influence.

It is with the mixed clinical reaction that the co-therapists regard the positive reaction of Mr. B to therapy. His response was one of delighted enthusiasm for the concept of interaction marked by both physical and verbal communication.

His feeling for his wife was intensified and he has become completely comfortable in a demonstrative marital role. While both partners feel that the alteration in the quality of the marital relationship is of significant proportion, the therapy has in fact failed to achieve the aim of reversal of the presenting distress.

This case represents a strikingly intense degree of negative conditioning, yet there was little content in the history that could be termed specifically negative in its rejection of sexual expression.

This case also represents an example of the possible clinical warning system revealed by a negative reaction to the use of a moisturizing lotion as a medium of physical exchange. Mrs. B found its use “distracting” and of little meaning to the exchange with her partner.

While Mr. B found it to be a crucial contribution to establishing his initial ability to touch and feel with comfort and receptivity.

While the multiplicity of etiological influences is acknowledged, the factor of religious orthodoxy remains of major import in primary orgasmic dysfunction as in almost every form of human sexual inadequacy.

Investigation of 193 women who have never achieved orgasmic return before referral to the Foundation for treatment, 42 were products of rigidly channelized religious control. Eighteen were from Catholic, 26 from Jewish, and 7 from fundamentalist Protestant backgrounds.

It may also be recalled that 9 of these 42 primarily non-orgasmic women reflecting orthodox religious backgrounds also were identified as having the clinical complaint of vaginismus, while 3 more women with orthodox religious backgrounds had to contend with situational orgasmic dysfunction and vaginismus simultaneously.

A history reflecting the control of orthodox religious demands upon the orgasmically dysfunctional woman and her husband is presented to underscore the Foundation’s professional concern for any orthodoxy-influenced imprinting and environmental input that can and does impose severely negative influences upon the susceptible woman’s psychosocial structure relative to her facility for sexual functioning.

Mr. A and His Wife

After 9 years of a marriage that had not been consummated, Mr. and Mrs. A were referred to the Foundation for treatment. He was 26 and she 24 years old at marriage. Mrs. A’s family background was one of unquestioned obedience to parents and disciplinary religious tenets.

She was one of three siblings, the middle child to an elder brother by three years, and a younger sister by two years. Other than her father, religion was the overwhelming influence in her life. The specific religious orientation that of Protestant fundamentalism encompassed total dedication to the concept that sex and sin were synonymous words.

Mrs. A remembers her father, who died when she was 19, as a Godlike figure whose opinion in all matters was an absolute law in the home. Control of dress, social commitment, educational direction, and in fact, school selection through college were his responsibility.

There were long daily sessions, of family prayer interspersed with paternal pronouncements, never family discussions. On Sunday the entire day was devoted to the church, with activities running the gamut of Sunday school, formal service, and young people’s groups.

The young woman described a cold, formal, controlled family environment in which there was complete demand for the dress as well as toilet privacy.

Not only were the elder brother and sisters socially isolated, but the sisters also were given separate rooms and encouraged to protect individual privacy.

She never remembers having seen her mother, father, brother, or sister in an undressed state. The subject of sex was never mentioned, and all literature, including newspapers, available to the family group was evaluated by her father for possibly suggestive or controversial material. There was a restricted list of radio programs to which the children could listen.

Mrs. A had no concept of her mother except as a woman living a life of rigid emotional control, essentially without a described personality, fully dedicated to the concept that a woman’s role was one of service. She considered it her duty and her privilege to clean, cook, and care for children, and to wait upon her husband.

There is no recall of pleasant moments of quiet exchange between mother and daughter, or, for that matter, of any freedom to discuss matters of the moment with either her brother or her sister.

As a young girl, she was totally unprepared for the onset of menstruation. The first menstrual period occurred while she was in school she was terrified, ran home, and was received by a thoroughly embarrassed mother who coldly explained to the young girl that this was a woman’s lot.

She was told that as a woman she must expect to suffer this “curse” every month. Her mother warned her that once a month she would be quite ill with “bad pains” in her stomach and closed the discussion with the admonition that she was never to discuss the subject with anyone, particularly not with her younger sister. The admonition was obeyed to the letter.

The mother provided the protective materials necessary and left the girl to her own devices. There was no discussion of when or how to use the menstrual protection provided.

Menstrual cramping had its onset with the second menstrual period and continued to be a serious psychosocial handicap until Mrs. A was seen in therapy. She also described the fact that her younger sister was confined to bed with monthly frequency while maturing.

During the Teenage Years

Dating in groups was permitted by her father for church-social activities and occasionally, well-chaperoned school events. College, selected by her father, was a coeducational institution which was described by her as living by the “18-inch rule,” i.e., handholding was forbidden and 18 inches were required between male and female students at all times.

Her dating was rare and well chaperoned. After graduation, she worked as a secretary in a publishing house specializing in religious tracts. Here she met and married a man of almost identical religious background.

The courtship was completely circumspect from a physical point of view. The couple arrived at their wedding night with a history of having exchanged three chaste kisses, which not only was the total of their physical courtship but also represented the only times she remembered ever being kissed by a man. Her father had felt such a display of emotion unseemly.

The only time her mother ever discussed a sexual matter was the day of her wedding. Mrs. A was carefully instructed to remember that she now was committed to serve her husband. It would be her duty as a wife to allow her husband privileges.

The Husband Privileges

were never spelled out. She also was assured that she would be hurt by her husband, but that “it” would go away in time. Finally and most importantly, she was told that “good women” never expressed interest in the “thing.” Her reward for serving her husband would be, hopefully, in having children.

She remembers her wedding night as a long struggle devoted to divergent purposes. Her husband frantically sought to find the proper place to insert his penis, while she fought an equally determined battle with nightclothes and bedclothes to provide as complete a modest covering as possible for the awful experience.

The pain her mother had forecast developed as her husband valiantly strove for intromission.

Although initially there were almost nightly attempts to consummate the marriage, there was a total lack of success. It never occurred to Mrs. A that she might cooperate in any way with the insertive attempts.

And since this was to be her husband’s pleasure, it, therefore, was his responsibility.

She evidenced such a consistently painful response whenever penetration was attempted that frequency of coital attempt dwindled rapidly. The last three years before referral, attempts at consummation occurred approximately once every three to four months.

For 9 years this woman only knew that she was physically distressed whenever her husband approached her sexually and that for some reason the distress did not abate, Her husband occasionally ejaculated while attempting to penetrate, so she thought that he must be satisfied.

Whenever Mr. A renewed the struggle to consummate, she was convinced that he had little physical consideration for her. Her tense, frustrated, negative attitude, initially stimulated by both the pain and the “good woman” concept described by her mother, became in due course one of complete physical rejection of sexual functioning in general and of the man involved in particular.

When seen in therapy, Mrs. A had no concept of what the word masturbation meant. Her husband’s sexual release before marriage had been confined to occasional nocturnal emissions, but he did learn to masturbate after’ marriage and accomplished ejaculatory release approximately once a week, without his wife’s knowledge. There was no history of extramarital exposure.

Of interest is the fact that Mrs. A’s brother has been twice divorced, reportedly because he cannot function sexually, and her younger sister has never married. As would be expected, at physical examination Mrs. A demonstrated a severe degree of vaginismus in addition to the intact hymen.

In the process of explaining the syndrome of involuntary vaginal spasm to both husband and wife, the procedures described were followed in detail. When vaginismus was described and then directly demonstrated to both husband and wife.

It was the first time Mr. A had ever seen his wife unclothed and also the first time she had submitted to a medical examination.

There obviously were multiple etiological influences combining to create this orgasmic dysfunction, but the repression of all sexual material inherent in the described form of religious orthodoxy certainly was the major factor.

Under Foundation direction, the process of education had to include reorientation of both the sexual and social value systems. The influence of the psychosocial system was turned from a dominant-negative factor to a relatively neutral one during the acute phase of treatment.

This alteration in repressive quality allowed Mrs. A’s natural biophysical demand to function without determined opposition, and orgasmic expression was obtained. Obviously, the husband needed a definitive psychosexual evaluation as much as did his wife.

Male Sexual Dysfunction

To be diagnosed as having primary orgasmic dysfunction, a woman must report a lack of orgasmic attainment during her entire lifespan. There is no definition of male sexual dysfunction that parallels this severity of exclusion.

A Male Is Judged Primarily Impotent:

The definition means simply that he has never been able to achieve intromission in either homosexual or heterosexual opportunity. However, he might, and usually does, masturbate with some regularity or enjoy occasions of partner manipulation to ejaculation.

For the primarily non-orgasmic woman, however, the definition demands a standard of total orgasmic responsivity.

The edict of lifetime non-orgasmic return in the Foundation’s definition of primary orgasmic dysfunction includes a history of consistent non-orgasmic response to all attempts at physical stimulation, such as masturbation, male or female manipulation, oral-genital contact, and vaginal or rectal intercourse.

In Short

Every possible physical approach to sexual stimulation initiated by self or received from any partner has been totally unsuccessful in developing an orgasmic experience for the particular woman diagnosed as primarily non-orgasmic.

If a woman is orgasmic in dreams or fantasy alone, she still would be considered primarily non-orgasmic.

Foundation personnel has encountered two women who provided a positive history of an occasional dream sequence with orgasmic return and a negative history of physically initiated orgasmic release.

However, no woman has been encountered to date that described the ability to fantasy to orgasm without providing a concomitant history of successful orgasmic return from a variety of physically stimulative measures.

There are salient truths about male and female sexual interaction that place the female in a relatively untenable position from equality of sexual response.

Of primary consideration is the fact of a woman’s physical necessity for an effectively functioning male sexual partner if she is to achieve a coitally experienced orgasmic return.

During coition, the non-orgasmic human female is immediately more disadvantaged than her sexually inadequate partner in that her performance fears are dual in character. Her primary fear is, of course, for her own inability to respond as a woman, but she frequently must contend with the secondary fear for the inadequacy of male sexual performance.

The outstanding example of such a situation is, of course, that of the woman married to a premature ejaculator. From mutual responsibility for sexual performance, the woman has only to make herself physically available to provide the male with ejaculatory satisfaction.

The premature ejaculator in turn makes himself available, there usually is little correlation between intromission, rapid ejaculation, and female orgasmic return during the episode.

Married Premature Ejaculator

The biophysically disadvantaged female usually is additionally disadvantaged from a psychosocial point of view. Not only is there the insufficient bio-physical opportunity to accomplish orgasmic return, but in short order, the wife develops the concept of being sexually used in the marriage.

She feels that her husband has no real interest in her personally nor any concept of responsibility to her as a sexual entity. Many times the wife might be at a peak of sexual excitation with intromission. Without fear for her husband’s sexual performance, she could be orgasmically responsive shortly after the coital connection, displaying a full bio-physical capacity for sexual response.

But as she sees and feels the male thrusting frantically for ejaculatory release, she immediately fears the loss of sexual opportunity, is distracted from the input of biophysical stimuli by that fear, and rapidly loses sexual interest.

With the negative psychosocial-system influence from the concept of being used more than counterbalancing the high level of biophysically oriented sexual tension she brought to the coital act, the orgasmic opportunity is lost.

A brief attempt should be made to highlight the direct association of male and female sexual dysfunction in marriage, for there were 223 couples referred to the Foundation for treatment with bilateral partner complaints of sexual inadequacy. By far the greatest instance of a combined diagnosis was that of a non-orgasmic woman married to a premature ejaculator.

Of the total 186 premature ejaculators treated in the 11-year program, 68 were married to women reported as primarily non-orgasmic and an additional 39 wives were diagnosed as situationally non-orgasmic. Thus, in 107 of the 223 marriages with bilateral partner complaints of sexual dysfunction, the specific male sexual inadequacy was premature ejaculation.

Since the in-depth descriptions of the premature ejaculator presented in the earlier topics include full descriptions of the problems of female sexual functioning in this situation, there is no need for a detailed history representative of the 68 women primarily non-orgasmic in marriages to prematurely ejaculating men.

Another salient feature in the human female’s disadvantaged role in coital connection is the centuries-old concept that it is a woman’s duty to satisfy her sexual partner. When the age-old demand for accommodation during coital connection dominates any woman’s responsivity, her own opportunities for orgasmic expression are lessened proportionately.

If a woman is to express her biophysical drive effectively, she must have the single-standard opportunity to think and feel sexually during coital connection that previous cultures have accorded the man.

The male

must consider the marital bed as not only his privilege but also a shared responsibility if his wife is to respond fully with him in coital expression. The heedless male driving for orgasm can carry along the woman already lost in high levels of sexual demand, but his chances of elevating to orgasm the woman who is trying to accommodate to the rhythm, depth, and power of his demanding pelvic thrusting are indeed poor.

It is extremely difficult to categorize female sexual dysfunction on a relatively secure etiological basis. There is such a multiplicity of influences within the biophysical and psychosocial systems that to isolate and underscore a single, major etiological factor in any particular situation is to invite later confrontation with pitfalls in therapeutic progression.

Random orgasmic inadequacy is illustrated in the history below. With but two episodes of orgasmic attainment in her life, Mrs. H provides a history of one manipulative and one coital effort to orgasmic release. Her two highlighted sexual experiences were as much of a surprise to her when they occurred as they were to her husband.

There seems to be a clinical entity of low sexual tension which by history does not represent specific trauma to a sexual or any other value system. If so, it is rare both in occurrence and in professional identification. Perhaps the case history reported below is representative of such a situation.

Mr. and Mrs. H

were referred to the Foundation after 11 years of marriage with the wife’s stated complaint that she was just not interested in sex. She was 47 and her husband 44 years old. Her childhood and adolescent years had been spent in comfortable surroundings. She was the eldest by three years of two sisters and reported a relatively uneventful, non-traumatic background for growth and development.

Mrs. H was a relatively attractive woman with a reasonable number of dating opportunities during her high school and college years. Despite thoroughly enjoying the social aspects of the dating opportunities, there was little sexual stimulation from the few petting experiences she accepted.

She never masturbated and recalled no awareness of pleasant pelvic sensations during her childhood.

Her mother was a relatively self-sufficient woman with multiple socio-cultural interests. She never discussed the material of sexual content with her daughter. When Mrs. H. was 15, her father was killed in an automobile accident.

After college, Mrs. H sought the opportunity for a professional career in the business world. She continued working throughout her twenties, doing exceptionally well professionally. There was established social opportunity, but she found herself resistant to both male and female (one occasion) approaches to the shared sexual experience.

Her resistance was not described as aversion. It was just that she was essentially unstimulated by any sexual approach and saw no point in a commitment without interest.

She had several women and men friends and many interests. She worked hard, enjoyed her vacations, traveled extensively, but simply avoided sexual approach. At age 36 she met and married a man three years her junior who was working in the same professional field. They formed their own business venture.

From Mrs. H’s point of view, the marriage was simply a form of a business merger. The same could not be said for her husband. He was very much interested in sexual functioning. He had been married for less than two years in his mid-twenties and listed a large number of sexual opportunities with a wide variety of experiences before this marriage.

Mrs. H was totally cooperative in sexual functioning but was basically unmoved. She lubricated well with coital connection, found pleasure in providing a release for her husband, but was totally uninvolved personally.

She had never masturbated, and her husband’s attempts to stimulate her not only were unsuccessful but at times she even found them amusing when “nothing happened.” Neither repulsed nor frustrated, she simply wasn’t involved in sexual expression.

This was not her husband’s reaction to their mutual sexual experiences. He found her lack of responsiveness utterly frustrating. Together they prospered from a financial point of view, but her obvious lack of sexual interest was depressing to him as an individual:

Eighteen months before referral to the Foundation, Mrs. H was highly stimulated on one occasion during coital connection and was orgasmic. The couple thought success had been attained, but subsequent coital episodes found her essentially unstimulated. There was one other such episode of orgasmic attainment.

On this occasion, the business had gained an important new source of financial return and the unit had celebrated its success with dinner and the theater. She was orgasmic that night by manipulation only. Thereafter, there was no significant level of response regardless of the mode of stimulation. It was a high level of male frustration that brought the unit to the Foundation for treatment. Through the above article, we can recommend you the latest dresses.in a variety of lengths, colors and styles for every occasion from your favorite brands.

Orgasm and Masturbation

These were a few cases of masturbatory orgasmic inadequacy. The classification represents a stage of a woman’s sexual responsivity and, other than for categorizing purposes has no assigned value and will not be illustrated in-depth. Two types of history dominate this classification.

The first: is the story so often obtained from women guilt-ridden from masturbatory experimentation. They try to masturbate as young women, and after failing a time or two, simply withdraw from experimentation with the concept that they have fallen from grace. Later in their mature sexual experience, genital-area manipulation as a means of sexual excitation is at best moderately successful, but they are not orgasmic except during coition.

The second: is that of the female “don’t touch” syndrome. When taught that masturbation is evil they react by avoiding any approach to self-stimulation during adolescence and their maturing years. They may be orgasmic during socially acceptable coital opportunities but cannot be manually or orally elevated to orgasmic return.

The sexually dysfunctional woman as an effect of the male sexual function has been discussed in depth. There are so many variations on the theme of orgasmic inadequacy that many chapters could have been written, and the subject still would not have been covered adequately.

The concepts of a duality of psychosocial and biophysical structuring that influence a woman’s sexual response patterns have been advanced. If any woman’s sexual value system is either undeveloped or damaged by an imbalance of either of these two theoretical systems of influence, the return may be varying degrees of orgasmic inadequacy.

When faced with the clinical responsibility of treatment demand for primary or situational orgasmic dysfunction, the therapist must have established theoretical concepts of sexual dysfunction if he is to treat effectively.

Male Female Sexual Response

Both contribute positively or negatively to any state of sexual responsivity but have no biological demand to function in a complementary manner.

With the reminder that finite analysis of male sexual capacity and physiological response also has attracted little scientific interest in the past.

Compare Male And Female

It should be reemphasized that similarities rather than differences are frequently more significant in comparing male and female sexual responses. By intent, the focus of this topic is directed toward the human female, but much of what is to be said can and does apply to the human male.

The bio-physically and psychosocially based systems of influence that naturally coexist in any woman have the capacity if not the biological demand to function in mutual support.

Obviously, there is an interdigitation of systems that reinforce the natural facility of each to function effectively. However, there is no factor of human survival or internal biological need defined for the female that is totally dependent upon a complementary interaction of these two systems.

Unfortunately, they frequently compete for dominance in problems of sexual dysfunction.

Woman’s Response

When the human female is exposed to negative influences under circumstances of individual susceptibility, she is vulnerable to any form of psychosocial or biophysical conditioning, i.e., the formation of man’s individually unique sexual value systems.

Based on how an individual woman internalizes the prevailing psychosocial influence, her sexual value system may or may not reinforce her natural capacity to function sexually.

One need only remember that sexual function can be displaced from its natural context temporarily or even for a lifetime to realize the concept’s import.

Women cannot erase their psychosocial sexuality and sexual identity, being female, but they can deny their biophysical capacity for natural sexual functioning by conditioned or deliberately controlled physical or psychological withdrawal from sexual exposure.

Yet a woman’s conscious denial of biophysical capacity rarely is a completely successful venture, for her physiological capacity for sexual response infinitely surpasses that of man.

Indeed, her significantly greater susceptibility to negatively based psychosocial influences may imply the existence of a natural state of psycho-sexual-social balance between the sexes that has been culturally established to neutralize a woman’s biophysical superiority.

The specifics of the human female’s physiological reactions to effective levels of sexual tension have been described in detail, but brief clinical consideration of these reactive principles is in order.

For women, as for men, the 3 specific total-body responses to elevated levels of sexual tension are:

1. Increased myotonia or muscle tension
2. Generalized vasocongestion, pooling of blood in tissues
3. Sex flush and breast enlargement.

When clinical attention is directed toward female orgasmic dysfunction, one particular biological area, the pelvic structures is of the moment.

Specific evidence has been accumulated from the incidence of both myotonia and vasocongestion in the female’s pelvis.

For many women, one of the most frequent causes for orgasmic dysfunction, either primary or situational, is a lack of complete identification with the marital partner.

The husband may not meet her expectations as a provider. He may have physical or behavioral patterns that antagonize.

Most Important

He may stand in the place of the man who had been much preferred as a marital partner but was not available or did not choose to marry the distressed woman. For myriad reasons, if the husband is considered inadequate according to his wife’s expectations, a negative dominance will be created in the psychosocial structure of many women.

Such a situation is exemplified by the following:

Mr. and Mrs. C

were 46 and 42 years of age, respectively, when referred to the Foundation. The wife complained of a lack of orgasmic return. The couple had been married 19 years when seen in treatment. The marriage was the only one for either partner. There were three children, the eldest of whom was 17, the youngest 12. There were barely adequate financial circumstances.

Mrs. C’s adolescent background had been somewhat restrictive. Her mother was a dominant woman with whom she developed little rapport. Her father died when she was 9 years old. There was one other sibling, a sister 8 years younger. Mrs. C went through the usual high school preparation, had two years of college, and then withdrew to take secretarial training and go to work in a large manufacturing company.

During her formative years, there were several friends, none of them particularly close except for one girl with whom she shared all her confidences. Mrs. C as a girl was fairly popular with boys, dated with regularity, and went through the usual petting experiences, but decided to avoid coital connection until marriage. She had no masturbatory history but described pleasure in the petting experiences, although she was not orgasmic.

Shortly after her twenty-second birthday, she fell in love with a young salesman for the company in which she worked. Theirs was a very happy relationship with every evidence of real mutuality of interest. She came to know and thoroughly enjoy his family, and they made plans to marry.

Three weeks before the marriage, her fiance, on a business trip, met and a week later married another woman, a divorced with two children. The jilted girl was crushed by the turn of events. This had been her only serious romantic attachment, and it had been a total commitment on her part.

Their Sexual Expression: petting and manipulated her fiance to ejaculation regularly.

Although she had been highly stimulated by his approaches she had not been orgasmic. The coital connection had not been attempted.

Six months later she married Mr. C, whom she thought kind and considerate. Their sexual experiences together were pleasant, but she achieved nothing comparable to the high levels of excitation provided by the first man in her life.

She described life with her husband as originally a good marriage. The children arrived as planned and the husband continued to progress satisfactorily in his business ventures, but husband and wife had very few mutual interests.

As the years passed Mrs. C became obsessed with the fact that she had never been orgasmic. She began to masturbate and reached high levels of excitation. Straining and willing orgasmic return without being able to fully accept the unrealistic nature of her imagery and fantasying, she failed, of course, in accomplishment.

Inexperience Husband

Her husband, with very little personal sexual experience other than in his marriage, had no real concept of an effective sexual approach. She repeatedly tried to tell him of her need, but his cooperative effort, maintained for only brief periods of time, was essentially unsuccessful.

After 12 years of marriage, Mrs. C sought sexual release outside the marriage with a man sexually much more experienced than her husband.

He did excite her to high plateau levels of sexual demand, but she always failed to achieve orgasmic release. This connection lasted off and on for a year and was only the first of several such extramarital commitments, always with the same disappointment in sexual return.

She was never able to avoid the fantasy of her former fiance whenever she approached orgasmic return, but her fantasy included a primarily negative impetus. Her frustration at “marrying the wrong man” was a constant factor in her coital encounters, as it was in most other aspects of her life.

As time passed she blamed her husband increasingly for her lack of orgasmic facility and became progressively more discontented with her lot in the marriage. She began to find fault with his financial return and social connections.

In short, Mrs. C felt that her husband was not providing satisfactorily for her needs and inevitably compared him with the man “she almost married.” This man had become a relatively well-known figure in the local area, had done extremely well financially, and apparently had a happy, functioning marriage.

Although Mrs. C never saw her former fiance, she constantly dwelt on what might have been, to the detriment of the ongoing relationship. Mrs. C sought psychiatric support for her non-orgasmic status but was unable to achieve the only real goal in her life, orgasmic release.

Finally, the husband and wife were referred to the Foundation to overcome professionally the conditioning of an adult lifetime and to cope with the requirements of her sexual value system impaired by the trauma it sustained when she was jilted by a man with whom she identified totally.

It is necessary to adjust to both her social and her sexual value systems be made in the hope of reversing or at least neutralizing the negative input of her psychosocial structure. There is no possible means of restructuring the negative input from “I married the wrong man” unless the problem is attacked directly.

First, in private sessions, the immature deification of her former fiance must be underscored.

Second, Mr. C must be presented to his wife in a different light, not in a platitudinal manner, but as the female co-therapist objectively views him.

A man’s positive attributes as he appears in another woman’s eyes carry value to the dysfunctional woman. Then there must be stimulation of the biophysical structure to levels of positive input. This, of course, is initiated by sensate-focus procedures.

Finally, the contrived somatic stimulation must be interpreted to Mrs. C’s sexual value system both by the co-therapists and by her husband. If these treatment concepts are followed successfully there is every good chance to reach the goal of orgasmic attainment.

To consider situationally non-orgasmic, a woman must have experienced at least one instance of orgasmic expression, regardless of whether it was induced by self or by partner manipulation, developed during vaginal or rectal coital connection, or stimulated by the oral-genital exchange.

Orgasmic experience during homosexual encounters would rule out any possibility of a diagnosis of primary orgasmic dysfunction. Three arbitrary categories of situational sexual dysfunction have been defined as masturbatory, coital, and random orgasmic inadequacy.

A woman with masturbatory orgasmic inadequacy has not achieved orgasmic release by partner or self-manipulation in either homosexual or heterosexual experience. She can and does reach orgasmic expression during coital connection.

Coital orgasmic inadequacy applies to the great number of women who have never been able to achieve orgasmic return during coition. The category includes women able to masturbate or to be manipulated to orgasmic return and those who can respond to orgasmic release from oral-genital or other stimulative techniques.

The random orgasmic-inadequacy grouping includes those women with histories of orgasmic return at least once during both manipulative and coital opportunities. These women are rarely orgasmic and usually are aware of little or no physical need for sexual expression.

For Example:

They might achieve orgasmic return with coital activity on a vacation, but never while at home. Occasionally these women might masturbate to orgasm if separated from a sexual partner for long periods of time. Usually, when they obtain orgasmic release, the experience is as much of a surprise to them as it is to their established sexual partner.

The situational non-orgasmic state may best be described by again pointing out the varying levels of dominance created by the biophysical and the psychosocial structures of influence. If the woman’s sexual value system reflects sufficiently negative input from prior conditioning psychosocial influence, she may not be able to adapt sexual expression to the positive stimulus of the particular time, place, or circumstance of her choosing nor develop a responsive reaction to the partner of her choice.

If that part of any woman’s sexual value system susceptible to the influence of the biophysical structure is overwhelmed by a negative input from pain with any attempted coital connection, there rarely will be an effective sexual response.

Thus there is a multiplicity of influences thrown onto the balance wheel of female sexual responsivity. Fortunately, the two major systems of influence accommodate these variables through involuntary interdigitation. If there were not the probability of admixture of influence, there might be relatively few occasions of female orgasmic experience.

Sexual Partner

A major source of orgasmic influence for both primarily and situationally dysfunctional women is partner orientation. What value has the male partner in the woman’s eyes? Does the chosen male maintain his image of masculinity? Regardless of his acknowledged faults, does he meet the woman’s requirements of character, intelligence, ego strength, drive, physical characteristics, etc.?

Obviously, every woman’s, partner requirements vary with her age, personal experience and confidence, and the requisites of her sexual value system.

The two case stories below underscore the variables of a woman’s orientation to her male sexual partner. The histories of Mr. and Mrs. E and Mr. and Mrs. F are presented, to emphasize that a potential exists for radical change in attitudinal concepts during the course of any marriage.

Mr. and Mrs. E

were referred for treatment of orgasmic dysfunction after 23 years of marriage. They had two children, a girl 20 and a boy 29.

The history of sexual dysfunction dated back to the twelfth year of the marriage. Both had relatively unremarkable backgrounds to family, education, and religious influences.

Both had masturbated as teenagers and had intercourse with other partners and with each other before marriage. Mrs. E usually had been orgasmic during these coital opportunities with her husband-to-be and with two other partners.

During the first twelve years of the marriage, the couple prospered financially and socially and had many common interests. Their sexual expression is resolved into an established pattern of sexual release two or three times a week.

There was the regularity of orgasmic return and frequently multi-orgasmic return during intercourse. During the twelfth year of the marriage, the unit experienced a severe financial reversal. Mr. E was discharged from his position with the company that had employed him since the start of the marriage.

In the following 18 months, he was unsuccessful in obtaining any permanent type of employment. He became chronically depressed and drank too much. The established pattern of couple sexual encounter was either quite reduced or, on occasions, demandingly increased.

Husband Extramarital Relationship

Then Mrs. E found that her husband was involved in an extramarital relationship and confronted him in the matter. A bitter argument followed, and she refused him the privilege of the marital bed. This sexual isolation lasted for approximately six months, during which time.

Mr. E began working again, regained control of his alcohol intake, and terminated his extramarital interest. For the duration of this isolation period, Mrs. E had no coital opportunity and did not masturbate. When the privilege of the bedroom was restored, to her surprise she was distracted rather than stimulated by her husband’s sexual approaches and was not orgasmic.

She had lost confidence in her husband not only as an individual but also as a masculine figure. Mrs. E found herself going through the motions sexually. From the time the bedroom door was reopened until the unit was seen in therapy, she was non-orgasmic regardless of the mode of sexual approach. The coital connection had dwindled to a ten-day to the two-week frequency of “wifely duty.”

When a major element in any woman’s sexual value system (partner identification in this instance) is negated or neutralized by a combination of circumstances, many women find no immediate replacement factor. Until they do, their facility for sexual responsivity frequently remains jeopardized.

When Mr. E combined loss of his masculine image as the provider with excessive alcohol intake and, also, acquired another sexual partner, he destroyed his wife’s concept of his sexual image, and, in doing so, removed from availability a vital stimulative component of her sexual value system. The negative input of psychosocial influence created by Mr. E’s loss of masculinity and impairment of her sense of sexual desirability was sufficient to inhibit her natural sexual responsivity.

Mr. and Mrs. F

were referred for treatment six years after they married when he was 29 and she was 24 years old. They had one child, a girl, during their third year together. Mrs. F Was from a family of seven children and remembers a warm community experience in growing up with harried but happy parents.

Mr. F had exactly the opposite background. He was an only child in a family where both father and mother devoted themselves to his every interest, in short, the typical overindulged single child.

He had masturbated from early teens, had some sexual experiences, and one brief engagement with coital connection maintained regularly for six months before he terminated the commitment. Mrs. F, although she dated regularly as a girl, was fundamentally oriented to group-type social commitments. She rarely had experienced single dating.

The school years were uneventful for both individuals. They met and married almost by accident. When they first began dating, each was interested in someone else. However, their mutual interest increased rapidly and developed into a courtship that included regularity of coital connection for three months before marriage.

Every social decision was made by Mr. F during the courtship. The same pattern of total control continued into marriage. He insisted on making all decisions and was consistently concerned with his own demands, paying little or no attention to his wife% interests. Constant friction developed, as is so frequently the case with marital partners whose backgrounds are opposed.

Mrs. F had not been orgasmic before marriage. In marriage, she was orgasmic on several occasions with manipulation but not during coition. As the personal friction between the marital partners increased, she found herself less and less responsive during active coital connection.

Pregnancy intervened sex

There was an occasional orgasmic success with manipulation. Pregnancy intervened at this time, distracting her for a year, but thereafter her lack of coital return was distressing to her and most embarrassing to her husband.

He worried as much about his image as a sexually effective male as he did about his wife’s levels of sexual frustration. Mrs. F’s lack of effective sexual response was considered a personal affront by her uninformed husband.

They consulted several authorities on the matter of her sexual inadequacy. The husband always sent his wife to authority to have something done to or for her. The thought that the situation might have been in any measure his responsibility was utterly foreign to him.

When the unit was referred for the therapy he at first refused to join her in treatment on the basis that it was her problem. When faced with Foundation demand that both partners cooperate or the problem would not be accepted for treatment, Mr. F grudgingly consented to participate.

Little comment is needed. This intentionally brief history is typical of the woman who cannot identify with her partner because he will not allow such communication. There is no world as dosed to the vital ingredient of marital expression as that of the world of the indulged only child.

Particularly is this attitudinal background incomprehensible to a woman with a typical large family orientation. When Mr. F failed to accord his wife the representation of her own requirements, she had no opportunity to think or feel sexually. The catalytic ingredient of mutual partner involvement was missing.

Although emphasis has been placed upon the role of premature ejaculation in the etiology of primary orgasmic dysfunction, primary or secondary impotence also contributes. Again the basic theme of man and woman coital interaction must be emphasized.

If there is not a sexually effective male partner, the female partner has the dual handicap of fear for her husband’s sexual performance as well as for her own.

If there is no penile erection there will be no effective coital connection.

Frequently women married to impotent men cannot accept the idea of developing a masturbatory facility or being manipulated to orgasm as a substitute for tension release.

However, if there has been a masturbatory pattern established before coital inadequacy assumes dominance, most women can return to this sexual outlet. In this situation, there is sufficient dominance of the previously conditioned biophysical structure to overcome negative input from a psychosocial system distressed by sexual performance fears.

But if there have been no previous substitute measures established, many women cannot turn to this mode of relief once impotence halts effective coital connection. In this situation, the psychosocial structure, unopposed by prior biophysical conditioning, assumes the dominant influence in the woman’s sexual response pattern.

Mr. and Mrs. D

were referred to the treatment of orgasmic inadequacy after four years of marriage. When seen in therapy she was 27 and her husband 43 years old. He had been married twice previously. There were children of both marriages and none in the current marriage.

The husband also was sexually dysfunctional in that he was secondarily impotent.

His second marriage had been terminated due to his inability to continue the effective coital connection. Although, when the unit was seen in consultation the marriage had been consummated, coitus occurred only once or twice a year.

Mrs. D’s background reflected somewhat limited financial means. Her father had died when the three siblings were young, and the family had been raised by their mother, who worked while the grandmother took care of the children.

Clothes were hand-me-downs, food the bare essentials. Her education had of necessity terminated with high school, and she worked as a receptionist in several different offices befo3e her marriage. She continued to live at home while working and contributed to what salary she made to help with the family’s limited income.

Mrs. D met her future husband when he visited the office where she worked. He invited the young woman to lunch. She accepted and married him four months later without knowledge of his sexual inadequacy, although she had been somewhat puzzled by his lack of forceful sexual approach during the brief courtship.

Mrs. D’s own sexual history had been one of a few unsuccessful attempts at masturbation, numerous petting episodes with boys in and out of high school, but no attempted coital connection. She had never been orgasmic.

Her husband had inherited a large estate and his financial situation certainly was the determining factor in his wife’s marital commitment. Since the girl had been distressed by a family background of genteel poverty, she felt the offer of marriage to be her real opportunity both to escape her environment and to help her two younger siblings.

The wedding trip was an unfortunate experience for Mrs. D when she realized for the first time that her husband had major functional difficulties. She knew little of male sexual response beyond the petting experiences but did try to help him achieve an erection by a multiplicity of stimulative approaches in his direction. There was no success in erective attainment.

The marriage was not consummated until six months after the ceremony. In the middle of the night, Mr. D awoke with an erection, moved to his wife, and inserted the penis. She experienced mild pain but reacted with pleasure, feeling that progress had been made.

However, following the usual pattern of .a secondarily impotent male, progress was fleeting. As stated, there were only a few other coital episodes in the course of the four-year marriage. In these instances, she always was awakened from sleep by her husband when he awoke to find himself with an erection.

Quick Ejaculation

Then there was rapid intromission and quick ejaculation. There was no history of a successful sexual approach by her husband under her conscious direction, insistence, or stimulation. Mr. D tried repetitively during long-continued manipulative and oral-genital sessions to bring his wife to orgasm, without result.

When they were referred for treatment, neither husband nor wife described sexual activity outside the marriage.

There have been 193 women treated for primary orgasmic dysfunction during the past 11years. Basically, in this method of therapy, the sexually dysfunctional woman is approached through her sexual value system.

If its requirements are non-serving limited, unrealistic, or inadequate to the marital relationship-by suggestion she is given an opportunity, with her husband’s help, to manipulate her biophysical and psychosocial structures of influence until an effective sexual value system is formed.

Sexual Lubrication

Probably the most frequent cause for dyspareunia originating with symptoms of burning, itching, or aching is a lack of adequate production of vaginal lubrication with sexual functioning.

During attempted penile intromission or with long-maintained coital connection, there must be adequate lubrication or there will be irritative distress for either or both coital partners.

Adequate production of vaginal lubrication is for women the physiological equivalent of erective attainment for men and her representation to her male partner of psychological readiness for vaginal penetration.

A consistent lack of functional levels of vaginal lubrication is as near as any woman can come to paralleling a man’s lack of effective erection.

Inadequate development of vaginal lubrication has many causes, but by far the most common is lack of interest in the particular opportunity or identification with the involved sexual partner. Women must experience positive input from their sexual value systems if they are to respond repetitively and effectively to their mate’s sexual approaches.

Women who cannot think or feel sexually, those reflecting fears of sexual performance, and even those acting out a spectator’s role in sexual functioning, either do not develop sufficient vaginal lubrication to support a painless coital episode or, if penetrated successfully, they cease production of the necessary lubricative material shortly after intravaginal penile thrusting is initiated.

Deep Penetration

Additionally, women fearful of pain with deep vaginal penetration, fearful of pregnancy with any coital connection, fearful of exposure to social compromise, and fearful of sexual inadequacy are frequently poor producers of vaginal lubrication. Any Component of fear present in sexual experiences reduces the receptivity to sensate input, thereby blunting biophysical responsivity.

If there is insufficient vaginal lubrication, there may or may not be acute pain with full penile intromission, depending primarily upon the parity of the woman, but they’re usually will be vaginal burning, irritation, or aching both during and after coital connection.

There are tens of thousands of women who become markedly apprehensive at the onset of any definitive sexual approach, simply because they know severe vaginal irritation will be experienced not only during but frequently for hours after any significantly maintained coital connection.

Not to be forgotten as a specific segment among the legions of women afflicted by inadequate production of vaginal lubrication are those in their postmenopausal years. If they are not supported by adequate sex-steroid-replacement techniques, the production of vaginal lubrication usually drops off markedly as the vaginal mucosa routinely turns atrophic.

There well may be aching and irritation in the vagina for a day or two after a coital connection for women contending with this evidence of sex-steroid starvation.

A major category of women tending to be poor lubrication producers during coital connection is that a significant segment of the female population with overt lesbian orientation. Many women psychosexually committed to a homophile orientation attempt regularity of coital connection for socioeconomic reasons. Frequently, they may not lubricate well during heterosexual activity, although there usually is ample lubrication when they are directly involved in the homosexual expression.

In most instances:

Inadequate production of vaginal lubrication can be reversed with a definite therapeutic approach. Certainly, women burdened by a multiplicity of sex-oriented fears can be provided psychotherapeutic relief of their phobias and subsequently reversed with relative ease from their particular pattern of sexual inadequacy.

Those women with chronic vaginal itching and irritation can be protected from continuing dyspareunia because both infectious and chemical vaginitis are reversible under proper clinical control. Senile vaginitis responds in short order to adequate sex-steroid-replacement techniques.

There are only two major categories of women for whom the co-therapists have little to offer to constitute effective production of vaginal lubrication: first, women mated to men for whom they have little or no personal identification, understanding, affection, or even sexual respect; and second, homosexually oriented women practicing coition for socioeconomic reasons with no interest in their male companions as sexual partners.

Undesired Sex

As opposed to the symptoms of aching, irritation, or burning in the vagina, complaints of severe pain developed during penile thrusting provide the most difficulty in delineating between subjective and objective etiology.

Although many women register this type of complaint when seeking to avoid undesired sexual approaches, there are some basic pathological conditions in the female pelvis that can and do engender severe pain in response to active coital connection.

One of the difficulties in delineating the severity of the complaint of dyspareunia is to identify pelvic pathology of a quality sufficient to support the female partner’s significant complaints of painful coition. The pelvic residual from severe infection or pelvic implants of endometriosis usually is easily identified by adequate pelvic and rectal examinations.

These clinical entities will be discussed briefly in context later in the topic. Current attention is drawn to probably the most frequently overlooked of the major physiological syndromes creating intense pelvic pain during coital connection.

One of the most obscure of pelvic pathological syndromes, yet one of the most psychosexually crippling, is traumatic laceration of the ligaments supporting the uterus. This syndrome was described clinically. Five women have been referred to the Foundation for relief of subjective symptoms of dyspareunia after referral sources had assured the husbands that there was no plausible physical reason for the constant complaint of severe pain with deep penile thrust.

These 5 postpartum women had severe broad ligament lacerations and were relieved of their distress by definitive surgical approaches, not by psychotherapy. Therefore, they do not represent a component of the statistical analysis of treatment for sexual dysfunction.

Three women reflecting the onset of dyspareunia after criminal abortion techniques also have been seen in consultation and are not reflected in the statistics of the sexual inadequacy study. Three more women have been seen in gynecological consultation for acquired dyspareunia after gang-rape experiences.

They also have not been an integral part of the sexual-dysfunction study. These clinical problems will be mentioned in context. When first seen clinically, women with traumatic lacerations of the uterine supports, acquired with delivery or by specific criminal abortion techniques, present complaints that commonly accrue from pelvic vasocongestion, dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, and a feeling of being excessively tired.

These complaints are secondary or acquired in nature. The traumatized women consistently can relate the onset of their acquired dyspareunia to one particular obstetrical experience even from among three or four such episodes.

The basic intercourse distress arises with deep penetration of the penis. Women describe the pain associated with intercourse to be as if their husbands had “hit something” with the penis during deep vaginal penetration.

These involved women may note other physical irritations frequently seen with chronic pelvic vasocongestion, a constantly nagging backache, throbbing or generalized pelvic aching, and occasionally, a sense that “everything is falling out.”

These symptoms are made worse in any situation requiring a woman to be on her feet for an exceptional length of time, as a full day spent doing heavy housecleaning or working as a saleswoman in a department store.

Most women lose interest in any regularity of sexual expression when distressed by acquired dyspareunia. Handicapped by constant anticipation of painful pelvic stimuli created by penile thrusting, they also may lose any previously established facility for orgasmic return.

The basic pathology of the syndrome of broad ligament laceration is confined to the soft tissues of the female pelvis. The striking features of the pelvic examination are the position of the uterus and almost always in severe third-degree retroversion and the particularly unique feeling that develops for the examiner with manipulation of the cervix.

This portion of the uterus feels just as if it were being rotated as a universal joint. It may be moved in any direction, up, down, laterally, or on an anterior-posterior plane with minimal, if any, correspondingly responsive movement of the corpus and body of the uterus.

Even the juncture of the cervix to the lower uterine segment is ill-defined. The feeling is one of an exaggerated Hegar’s sign of early pregnancy, in which the cervix appears to move in a manner completely independent of the attached corpus.

In addition to the “universal joint” feeling returned to the examiner when moving the cervix, a severe pain response usually is elicited by any type of cervical movement. However, pain is primarily occasioned by pushing the cervix in an upward plane.

In the more severe cases, either in advanced bilateral broad ligament laceration or in a presenting complaint of five years or more in duration even mild lateral motion of the cervix will occasion a painful response. During the examination, the retroverted uterus appears to be perhaps twice increased in size.

Pressing against the corpus in the cul-de-sac to reduce the third-degree retroversion also will produce a marked pain response. When the examiner applies upward pressure on the cervix or pressure in the cul-de-sac against the corpus, the patient frequently responds to the painful stimulus by stating, “It’s just like the pain I have with intercourse.”

A detailed obstetrical history is a salient feature in establishing the diagnosis of the broad ligament laceration syndrome. The untoward obstetrical event creating the lacerations may be classified as surgical obstetrics, as an obstetrical accident, or even as a poor obstetrical technique.

Occasionally, women with both the positive pelvic findings and the subjective symptoms of this syndrome cannot provide a positive history of obstetrical trauma, but this situation does not rule out the existence of the syndrome.

Many women are unaware of an unusual obstetrical event because they were under advanced degrees of sedation or even full anesthesia at the time.

Precipitate deliveries, difficult forceps deliveries, complicated breech deliveries, and postmature-infant deliveries are all suspect as obstetrical events that occasionally contribute to tears in the maternal soft parts.

If these tears are established in the supports of the uterus (broad ligaments) the immediate postpartum onset of severe dyspareunia can be explained anatomically and physiologically. It is important to emphasize clinically that although a woman may not be able to describe a specific obstetrical misfortune in her history, she well may be able to date the onset of her acquired dyspareunia to one particular obstetrical event.

Three cases have been seen in which a criminal abortion was performed by extensively packing the vaginal barrel, leading ultimately to dilation of the cervix and expulsion of uterine content.

These extensive vaginal-packing episodes created tears of the broad ligaments, completely parallel to those occasioned by actual obstetrical trauma. Each woman, although unaware of the etiological significance, dated the onset of the symptoms of acquired dyspareunia to the specific experience with the vaginal-packing type of abortive technique.