Author: The Beauty Nation

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 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 sensation 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.

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 opportunity 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 contributing positively or negatively to any state of sexual responsivity but having 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 response. 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 remembers 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 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 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 woman, as for man, 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 therapy he at first refused to join her in treatment on the basis that it was her problem. When faced with the 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.