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.

During the rapid treatment program, the daily report and ensuing discussions between the co-therapists and marital partners describing the non-orgasmic wife’s reactions and as well as those of her interacting husband, provide an incisive measure of the degree to which the requirements of her functioning sexual value system are being met or negated, or the extent to which she progressively can adapt her requirements.

These discussions provide a simultaneous opportunity for a more finite evaluation of the levels of interactive contribution to sexual function by her biophysical and psychosocial systems.

The treatment of both primary and situational orgasmic dysfunction requires a basic understanding by patients and co-therapists that the peak of sex-tension increment resulting in the orgasmic release cannot be willed or forced.

Orgasmic experience evolves as a direct result of individually valued erotic stimuli accrued by the woman to the level necessary for psychophysiological release. Just as the trigger mechanism which stimulates the regularity of expulsive uterine contractions sending a woman into labor is still unknown, so is the mechanism that triggers orgasmic release from sex-tension increment.

Probably they are inseparably entwined to identify one may be to know the other.

It seems more accurate to consider female orgasmic response as an acceptance of naturally occurring stimuli that have been given erotic significance by an individual sexual value system than to depict it as a learned response.

There are many case histories recorded in this and related studies reporting orgasmic incidence in the developing human female at ages that correspond with ages reported in histories of onset of male masturbation and nocturnal emission.

These clearly described objective accounts are considered accurate because they correlated with subjective recall provided by several hundred women interrogated during previously reported laboratory studies. The initial authoritative direction in therapy includes suggestions to the marital unit for developing a non-demanding, erotically stimulating climate in the privacy of their own quarters.

At no time during the two-week therapy program is either of the marital partners under any form of observation, laboratory, or otherwise. Only the phenomenon of vaginismus is directly demonstrated to the husband of the distressed wife, under conditions routinely employed by appropriate practitioners of clinical medicine.

The co-therapists’ initial directions suggest ways of putting aside tension-provoking behavioral interaction for the duration of the rapid-treatment program and allow the woman to discover and share knowledge of those things which she personally finds to be sexually stimulating.

The further professional contribution must suggest to the marital unit ways and means to create an opportunity for the woman to think and feel sexually with spontaneity. She must be made fully aware that she has permission to express her sexual feelings during this phase of the therapy program without focusing on her partner’s sexual function except by enjoying a personal awareness of the direct stimulus to her sexual tensions that his obvious physical response provides.

Every non-orgasmic woman, whether distressed by primary or situational dysfunction, must develop adaptations within areas of perceptual, behavioral, and philosophic experience.

She must learn or relearn to feel sexual (respond to sexual stimuli) within the context of and related directly to shared sexual activities with her partner as they correlate with the expression of her own sexual identity, mood, preferences, and expectations.

The bridge between her sexual feeling (perception) and sexual thinking (philosophy) essentially is established through comfortable use of verbal and nonverbal (specifically physical) communication of shared experience with her marital partner.

Her philosophic adaptation to the acceptance and appreciation of sexual stimuli is further dependent upon the establishment of “permission” to express herself sexually. Any alteration in the sexual value system must, of course, be consistent with her own personality and social value system if the adaptation is to be internalized.

Keeping in mind the similarities between male and female sexual response, the crucial factors most often missing in the sexual value system of the non-orgasmic woman are the pleasure in, the honoring of, and the privilege to express the need for the sexual experience.

Restoration of sexual feeling to its appropriate psychosocial context (the primary focus of the therapy for the non-orgasmic woman) is the reversal of sexual dissembling. This, in turn, encourages a more supportive role for her sexuality. In the larger context of a sexual relationship, the freedom to express need is part of the “give-to-get” concept of inherent incapacity and facility for effective sexual responsivity.

Professional direction must allow for a woman’s justifiable, socially enhancing need for personal commitment because her capacity to respond sexually is influenced by psychosocial demand.

The commitment functions as her “permission” to involve herself sexually, when prior opportunities available to the formation of a sexual value system have not included an honorable concept of her sexuality as a basis upon which to accept and express her sexual identity.

Commitment apparently means many things to as many different women; most frequently encountered are the commitments of marriage or the promise of marriage, the commitment of love (real or anticipated) according to the interpretation of “love” for the particular individual.

Regardless of the form, the commitment takes after it is established the goal to be attained is the enjoyment of sexual expression for its own positive return and its enhancement of those involved.

During daily therapy sessions, interrogation of the sexually dysfunctional woman is designed to elicit material that expresses the emotions and thoughts that accompany the feelings (sexual or otherwise) developed by the sensate-focus exercise.

Also continually explored are the feelings, thoughts, and emotions that are related to the behavior of her marital partner. Her reactions when discussing material of sexual connotation are evaluated carefully to determine those things which may be contributing to ongoing inhibition or distortion being revealed by the regular episodes of psychophysiological interaction with her husband.

When a non-orgasmic female involves herself with her partner in situations providing opportunities for effective sexual function, her ever-present need is to establish and maintain communication.

Communication, both physical and verbal in nature, makes vital contributions, but it loses effectiveness in the rapid-treatment method is allowed to be colored by anger, frustration, or misunderstanding. While verbal communication is encouraged throughout the two-week period, physical communication is introduced in progressive steps following the initial authoritative suggestion to provide a non demanding, warmly encompassing, shared experience for the woman, with optimal opportunity for feeling.

After the early return from sensate-focus opportunity as directed at the roundtable discussion has been judged fully effective by marital partners and co-therapists the marital unit is encouraged to move to the next phase in sensate pleasure genital manipulation.

The co-therapists should issue specific instructions to the marital partners as “permission” is granted to the female to enjoy genital play.

Sexual instructions should include details of positioning, approach, time span, and above all, a listing of ways and means to avoid the usual pitfalls of male failure to stimulate his partner in the manner she prefers rather than as she permits him the privilege to function.

Treat Orgasm

Neither the biophysical nor the psychosocial systems which influence the expression of the human sexual component have a biologically controlled demand to make specifically positive or negative contributions to sexual function.

This fact does not alter the potential of the systems’ interdigitation contribution to the formation of effective patterns of sexual response. When this potential is not realized by the natural development of psychophysiological sexual complements, the result is sexual dysfunction.

The initial psychosocial contributions toward the realization of this potential may come through a positive experience of early imprinting. Imprinting is a process whereby a perceptual signal is matched to an innate releasing mechanism that elicits a behavioral pattern. Established at critical periods in development, imprints thereafter are considered more or less permanent.

Infantile imprinting of sexually undifferentiated sensory receptivity to the warmth and sensation of close body contact is considered a source of formative contribution to an individual’s baseline of erotic inclinations and choices.

This material essentially is unobtainable in specific form during history-taking. It becomes important to the rapid-treatment program only as it is reflected by statements of preference in physical communication or other recall pertinent to ongoing patterns of sexual responsivity.

Treatment Of Orgasmic Dysfunction

Foundation personnel makes use of two primary sources of material. These sources reliably reflect the female’s prevailing sexual attitudes, receptivity, and levels of responsivity. The first source, derived from history, is the identification by the non-orgasmic woman of erotically significant expectations or experiences (positive or negative) currently evoked during a sexual interchange with her marital partner.

The co-therapists must identify those things which the husband does or does not do that may not meet the requirements of his wife’s sexual value system previously shaped by real or imagined experience or expectation.

Past experiences of positive content involving other partners, or unrealizable expectations perceived as ideal, maybe over idealistically compared by her to the current opportunity; or negative experiences or negative expectation-related attitudes may intrude upon receptivity to her partner’s sexual approach.

Thus, a rejection or blocking of sexual input may be the result.

A discussion of memories of perceptual and interpretive reactions associated with the specific sexual activity may add a further dimension to the knowledge of the wife’s currently constituted sexual value system since these memories often have been noted to function as signals for the subconscious introduction of stored experience, either positive or negative in nature.

The second source of reliable, directly applicable material upon which the rapid-treatment therapy relies for direction indeed, it characterizes this particular mode of psychotherapy is developed from the daily discussions that follow each sensate-focus exercise.

As repeatedly stressed, defining the etiology of the presenting sexual inadequacy does not necessarily provide the basis for treatment. A reasonably reliable history is indispensable, but it is used primarily to provide interpretive direction and to amplify the definition of that which is of individual significance. (It even is used from time to time to demonstrate negative patterns of sexual behaviors)

The husband has directed to place himself in a sitting (slightly reclining, if desired) position, with his back against a comfortable placement of pillows at the headboard of the bed. With the husband’s legs adequately separated to allow his wife to sit between them, she should recline with her back against his chest, pillowing her head on his shoulder.

The length of torsos should determine the reclining angle that permits her head to rest comfortably. Her legs are then separated and extended across those of her husband.

This position provides a degree of warm security for the woman (“back-protected” phenomenon) and allows freedom of access for the man to encourage creative exploration of his wife’s entire body in the sensate-focus concept.

The level of physical communication in the manipulative sessions is encouraged further by direction for the female partner to place her hand in a lightly riding position on that of her husband.

By using a slight increase in pressure or gentle directional movement, the “where and how” of her need of the moment may be immediately communicated to her receptive husband. This and other forms of nonverbal communication allow sharing of her particular desires as they occur as manifestations of her sexual value system, and constitute a secure way by which her marital partner can identify and fulfill these desires by meaningful interaction.

This means of direct physical communication also provides the woman with the freedom to request specifics of genital play without the distraction of forced verbal requests or a detailed explanation.

Any spontaneous form of expression of a man’s own sexual tensions is one of the most interactive contributions that he can make to his wife. It is a viable component of sexual “give to get” in any circumstance of physical sharing.

This principle applies equally to the marital unit carrying out the simplest sensate-focus exercise in the therapy program as it does to a marital unit that has never known sexual dysfunction.

The man must not presume his wife’s desire for a particular stimulative approach, nor must he introduce his own choice of stimuli. The husband’s assumption of expertise has no place in the initial learning phase of a marital unit seeking to reverse the life’s nonorgasmic condition.

The trial-and-error hazard this poses is not worth the small possibility of accidental pleasure that might be achieved. In truth, error in some facet of this controlled manipulative form of physical communication has already been established, or the marital-unit members probably would not consider themselves in need of professional support.

Only after both marital partners have established the fact of the wife’s sexual effectiveness with controlled genital play and have developed dependable physical signal systems should trial-and-error stimulative techniques be crone a naturally occurring dimension of pleasure.

It is well to mention that even those partners with an established, effective sexual relationship may find it both appropriate and advisable to check out their physical signal systems by verbal communication from time to time.

An additional value derived from the non-demand position and its accompanying sensate exercises is its contribution to the removal of the potential spectator’s role.

This role can become as much a pitfall for the nonorgasmic woman as it is for the impotent male. Already considered in descriptions of female-oriented patterns of sexual dissimulation, the spectator role is dissipated when the sexual involvement of husband and wife becomes mutually encompassing for both partners.

Educational Direction

For the husband is an integral part of the genital-play episodes. The co-therapists must be certain that the basics of effective pelvic play are clearly enunciated if the male partner is to provide an effective measure of stimulative return for the woman involved.

The husband is instructed both to allow and to encourage his wife to indicate specific preferences in the stimulative approach either by the light touch of her hand on his or by moving slightly toward the desired approach or away from excessive pressure.

Probably the greatest error that any man makes approaching a woman sexually is that of a direct attack upon the clitoral glans unless this is the stated wish of his particular partner. The glans of the clitoris has the same embryonic developmental background as that of the penis but usually is much more sensitive to touch.

As female sex tensions elevate, sensations of irritation, or even pain, may result from direct clitoral manipulation.

Rarely do women, when masturbating, manipulate the clitoral glans directly. Therefore, the male approach to clitoral stimulation would do well to correspond to that employed by women when providing self-release. There is a further, perhaps more subtle, reason for relative care in the intensity of stimulative concentration directed to the clitoris. This post is sponsored by our partners.

This originates from the fact that the clitoris, as a receptor and a transmitter of sexual stimuli, can rapidly react to create an overwhelming degree of sensation. When such a high level of biophysical tension is reached before the psychosocial concomitant has been subjectively appreciated, the woman experiences too much sensation too soon and finds it difficult to accept.

In the interest of a pleasurable, evolving sexual responsivity, the clitoris should not be approached directly. Specifically, manipulation should be conducted in the general mons area, particularly along either side of the clitoral shaft.

It must be remembered that the inner aspects of the thighs and the labia also are erotically identified areas for most women. Pressure and direction of manual stimulation should be controlled initially by the female partner for two educative reasons.

1. full freedom of manipulative control provides her with the opportunity to feel and think sexually without having to adjust to a partner’s assumption of what pleases her.
2. female control of manipulative activity also educates the male partner into the particular woman’s basic preferences in the stimulative approach to the clitoral area.

It must also be borne in mind by the male partner that there is no lubricating material available to the clitoris. As female sex tension increases there will be a sufficient amount of lubrication at the vaginal outlet.

This should be maneuvered manually from the vagina to include the general area of the clitoris. Vaginal lubrication used in this manner will prevent the irritation of the clitoral area that always accompanies any significant degree of manipulation of a dry surface.

A further dimension of sexual excitation is derived from manipulation of the vaginal outlet when lubricating material is acquired for clitoral spread by superficial finger insertion. There is usually little value returned from the deep vaginal insertion of the fingers, particularly early in the stimulative process.

While some women have reported a mental translation of the ensuing intravaginal sensation to that of penile containment, few had any preference for the opportunity.