Sex Drive

For many women, a basic homophile orientation is a major etiological factor in heterosexual orgasmic dysfunction. For those women committed to homosexual expression, lack of orgasmic return from heterosexual opportunity is of no consequence.

But there are a large number of women with significant homosexual experience during their early teenage years that, in time, have withdrawn from active homophile orientation to living socially heterosexual lives.

When they marry, many are committed to orgasmic dysfunction by the prior imprinting of homosexual influence upon their sexual responsivity.

Prior homosexual conditioning acts to create a negatively dominant psychosocial influence. Their biophysical capacity, freely evidenced in homosexual opportunity, continues operant in their electively chosen heterosexual environment, but it may not be of sufficient quality to overcome the negative input from their psychosocial system.

It is difficult to evaluate homosexual influence upon heterosexual function. There can be no question that both means of sexual expression will always be an integral part of every culture. So it has been for recorded time.

The problems of sexual adjustment do not rest with those committed unreservedly to a specific pattern of response. Rather, it is the gray area dweller that creates for him or herself a sexually dysfunctional status.

When moving from one means of sexual expression to the other for the first time, the sexual value system must be reoriented if the desired transfer of sexual identification is to be completed. Such was the problem of Mrs. G who had not been able to adapt her sexual value system to her elected heterosexual world when seen in therapy.

Mr. and Mrs. G

were referred for treatment after seven years of marriage, she was 33, her husband 38 years old. The current marriage was his second, the first ending in divorce.

The presenting complaint was that Mrs. G had never been orgasmic in the marriage. Her childhood and adolescence were spent in-a small Midwestern town as an only child of elderly parents. Her mother was 41 when she was born.

Introverted as a teenager, the girl did well in school but had few friends and was not popular with male classmates. When she was 15 years old she formed a major psychosexual attachment to a high-school teacher, who seduced the girl into a homosexual relationship.

The courtship continued for six months before physical seduction was accomplished. Once fully committed to the homosexual relationship, the girl matured rapidly in personality and took a great deal more care with her dress and person. She vested total psychosexual commitment in her “teacher” throughout her high-school years.

Full responsivity in the sexual component of the relationship developed slowly for the teenager, although she was occasionally orgasmic with manipulation within a few months ‘of her first physical experience.

Initially, hers was primarily a receptive role, but as she matured in the relationship psychologically, mutual manipulation and oral-genital stimulation in natural sequence became part of the unit’s pattern of sexual expression.

During the girl’s last year in high school, mutual sexual tensions were maintained at a high level, and physical release was sought by either or both women at a minimum frequency level of three to four times a week. Both women were multi-orgasmic. Mrs. G has no history of heterosexual dating in high school.

There was physical separation when Mrs. G went to college, but since the separation represented a distance of only fifty miles, she and the teacher spent many weekends together. However, toward the end of Mrs. G’s sophomore year in college, the high-school teacher was apprehended approaching other girls, was discharged, and left the geographical area.

This was a major blow to the girl. She had lost her love and at the same time was made aware that the teacher had sought other outlets. Her grades suffered and she became severely depressed and totally antisocial.

She dropped out of school for a semester, during which time she did very little but write long forgiving letters to her mentor, and even visited her for a ten-day period under the pretext of going to see friends.

It was not until Mrs. G graduated from college that the homosexual relationship was finally terminated. During the four college years, she had only two dates, both involving attendance at school events and of no sexual portent.

After graduation, Mrs. G took secretarial training and began working in a larger city in the Midwest. She still suffered from recurrent bouts of depression and finally sought psychiatric support. Helped by this counseling, she gradually enlarged her social circle, began heterosexual dating, and once more showed an interest in her dress and person.

While in college she had developed masturbatory patterns for tension release. The frequency throughout college and during her early years working as a secretary was several times per week. She usually was multi-orgasmic, as she had been during her continuing homosexual relationship.

At age 25 Mrs. G deliberately took advantage of an available partner to attempt intercourse. This experience was sought purely from curiosity demand.

There were several coital exposures with this eager but relatively inexperienced young man.

She found herself repulsed by the man’s untutored, harsh approaches as opposed to those of her high school teacher. She was not physically responsive and found the seminal fluid objectionable.

Added to this general rejection of heterosexual interest was the fact that shortly after establishing the sexual relationship there was a 10-day delay in the onset of a menstrual period. Her fear of pregnancy only contributed to her rejection of any psychosocial concept of heterosexual functioning.

Shortly thereafter Mrs. G met her husband. He had been divorced six months previously for the stated reason that his wife had wanted to marry another man. There were two children of the marriage, both living with their mother.

They were both lonely people and gravitated to each other. There was warmth and affection between them and several mutual interests, so they married.

Mr. G was sexually well versed, kind, considerate, and gentle with his wife. She felt warmly toward him and enjoyed providing him with sexual release. In doing so she lost her incipient phobia for the seminal fluid.

However, she was unstimulated by his sexual approaches beyond that degree necessary to produce adequate vaginal lubrication. Both partners agreed they did not want children, so contraceptive medication was taken by the wife.

The marriage, though warm and comfortable, for several years was essentially one of convenience. However, as time passed, the two partners grew closer together, learned to communicate, and to exchange vulnerabilities.

Yet there was no improvement in the wife’s sexual responsivity, and this became an increasingly important factor in their lives. Mrs. G had never told her husband of her homosexual experience and was guilt-ridden by the concept that her past sexual orientation might have precluded any possibility of effective response in her now desired heterosexual state. The husband and wife were referred for treatment at her insistence.

Scroll to Top
Scroll to Top