An example of a woman describing herself as ‘asexual’ illustrates this point (Brotto et al., 2010, p. 610):
Even though it is very pleasurable and exciting while I am doing it, I have absolutely no anticipation for it at all. I have no interest or desire that would lead me towards that in the way that I do towards other activities that I enjoy.
It has been noted that while women can be as aroused by sexual stimuli as can men, they usually expend relatively little effort in gaining access to them and a smaller percentage report masturbating than is the case for men (Wallen, 1995). The argument that social prohibitions are responsible for this sex difference is hard to support. Men have traditionally been warned of the dire consequences of masturbation. Biblical prohibitions refer to the male. Since the 1970s, female masturbation has been advised as a part of sex therapy.
Sexual frustration
All is useless. The desire for change seems invincible…My life is almost unbearable from unsatisfied lust. It is constantly on me, depresses me, and I must yield.
(Walter, cited in Marcus, 1966, p. 96)
Sexual frustration in terms of goal failure
Apter (2007) distinguishes between acute frustrations, where the individual perceives that the obstacle can be overcome and where it is thereby arousing, and chronic frustrations, where the situation is perceived as impossible and long-term unhappiness can result. If the analysis of drug-taking by Tiffany (1990) can be extrapolated to sexual desire, cravings and urges will be felt particularly under two different circumstances: (a) when a plan of sexual engagement is thwarted, described as ‘frustration’; and (b) when the individual is resisting temptation.
A cross-cultural dimension
If this chronic state of sexual deprivation on the part of most men (and not a few women as well) has not been more acute in the past, it is largely because the social control of sexual stimuli, i.e. censorship in its various forms, has been so severe as to keep erotic stimulation to a minimum. Likewise, economic conditions have, until now, made the struggle for survival so keen and desperate that only the ‘leisured classes’ have ever had at their disposal the time, means, and energy for a fuller sex life. This kind of socio-economic picture is however rapidly changing in our times, so that among the industrialised and economically developed countries larger and larger groups of people are beginning to show an interest in such ‘luxuries’ as a sane and happy sex life. As this sort of change is taking place on a large scale, the sense of sexual frustration will increase painfully for those who had previously plenty of other things to worry about – such as how to obtain the wherewithal for the most basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter, to say nothing of the threat to physical survival itself owing to wars, revolutions, natural catastrophes, etc.
(Kronhausen and Kronhausen, 1967, p. 181)
Would we expect sexual frustration to be lowest in a sexually permissive society? Obviously, the more opportunity available, the lower will be the frustration level amongst those engaging in sexual behaviour. But this cannot be the whole picture because, no matter how permissive the society, there will be a proportion of the population who get left out or who perceive themselves to have been left out. There is reason to believe that, amongst this section, frustration will actually be higher in a permissive society and possibly rape more frequent (Chappell et al., 1971). A comparison of US cities offers some tentative support to this. The authors use the following argument concerning the self-image of a rejected male (p. 176):
in a non-permissive setting…it is the setting itself that is responsible for any sexual setback he suffers. Women are inhibited, church rules are too oppressive, parents too strict, or laws too stringent – any of these conditions may be used to ‘explain’ an inability to achieve a desired sexual goal. In the permissive setting, the rejected male becomes more hard-pressed to interpret his rejection.
The authors suggest that a man who found himself repeatedly rejected in the gay bathhouses and clubs in pre-AIDS San Francisco would have little explanation except his own lack of attraction. Presumably, the same might be argued for a couple visiting a swinging club. There is probably an additional factor powerfully at work too, as follows. People tend to compare their rewards in life with those of others. For example, a pay rise of £1,000 when others get nothing seems to bring more pleasure than one of £2,000 when others receive £2,500. In a permissive society there will be much more to trigger sexual envy than in a non-permissive society.
Do people in what we might call ‘sexually repressed’ societies actually suffer in any way? Some have speculated that the answer is ‘no’, unless they come into contact with societies that have more liberal standards and they are able to put their own situation into context (Zillmann, 1984).
Frustration and the brain
Rage and the expectation of reward appear to be antagonistic emotions (Panksepp, 1982). Panksepp suggested that a thwarted expectation is the trigger to rage. Abler et al. (2005) reasoned that frustration might have features in common with social exclusion. Looking at different regions of the brain and their activity could give insights into frustration and its possible association with other negative emotions. In one study, participants experienced exclusion from a ‘virtual game’ while having their brains scanned (Eisenberger, 2012). Activation was found in brain regions normally associated with physical pain. Not surprisingly, it is even more difficult, if not impossible, to perform realistic studies on sexual frustration. Therefore, it is necessary to extrapolate based upon studies of the frustration involved in not attaining other desirable goals. Abler et al., looked at participants who were frustrated in not obtaining financial reward in an experiment where such reward was expected. Their brains were scanned to see changes in activity in different regions triggered by the experience of not getting reward. The expectation of a high monetary reward was associated with excitation of the ventral striatum and the right insula. There was a suppression of activity in the ventral striatum when an expected reward failed to materialize.
For some, the quest for enhanced pleasure and the avoidance of frustration leads logically to a search for novelty, the topic of the next chapter.
In summary
Sexual pleasure arises from a move towards a goal, sexual contact and, most powerfully, orgasm.
Dopamine might be involved in the pleasure of successful approach towards a sexual goal.
Opioids and oxytocin are likely candidates as substances forming the basis of the pleasure of sexual action.
The strength of sexual wanting is not necessarily matched by an equal strength of sexual liking.
Sexual frustration has something in common with social exclusion.
Eleven Sexual familiarity and novelty
‘I know how to love best. I am your servant, your concubine! You are my king, my idol! You are good, you are beautiful, you are clever, you are strong!’
He had heard so often these things said that they did not strike him as original. Emma was like all his mistresses, and the charm of novelty, gradually falling away like a garment…”1
(Gustave Flaubert, 1856/2010, p. 317)
If it is true that variety is essential for the maintenance of a normal, active sex life – at least for a substantial majority of the male population and for a certain proportion of females as well – then our social ideals of life-long enforced monogamy and sexual exclusivism are contrary to nature and a constantly festering source of cultural and individual pathology and discontent. Yet, this need for variety is exactly what all the scientific evidence from both human and animal studies seems to indicate beyond any reasonable doubt.”
(Kronhausen and Kronhausen, 1967, p. 180)
Basic principles
As a general principle applicable across various sexual and non-sexual situations, a wide range of species, for example rats, monkeys and humans, show a preference for some novelty (Bardo et al., 1996). That is to say, the brain is particularly sensitive to change in what arrives at the sense organs
relative to an unchanging pattern of stimulation. In experiments, animals work to achieve change in their physical environment, for example by pressing a lever to alter the illumination or gaining access to a visual image.
In various species, humans included, novelty can be a powerful stimulus to sexual desire and points to the role of the external incentive. Desire can be re-ignited in a so-called ‘sexually satiated’ animal, human or non-human, when a new partner appears (Schein and Hale, 1965). Arousal by novelty suggests that motivation arises from an interaction between an internal factor, now re-sensitized, and the incentive.
The search for novelty is an obvious means of sensation-seeking (Chapter 9). Humans, particularly those described as ‘sensation-seekers’ tend to be attracted to sexual variety, as well as to thrill-seeking in other areas such as dangerous sports and complex music such as jazz (Zuckerman, 1990). A good example of this is the actor Errol Flynn, who led a life largely devoted to risky adventure-seeking, hard drinking and womanizing. In terms of different personality types, extraverts are found to be more novelty-seeking than introverts, possibly therefore trying to correct intolerable levels of boredom (Gosselin and Wilson, 1980).
Novelty is not defined in terms of the qualities of the new partner as such – he or she need possess no intrinsically high attraction value. Rather, the property is a function of the new partner set in the context of a nervous system that is ‘satiated’ by the familiar partner. The features of the novel partner deviate from those of any established partner. In addition to different sensory features, humans know consciously that they are dealing with a different person, who transcends the sum of individual novel features.
A general tendency for humans to seek novelty could have proven advantageous in our evolution, in motivating the exploration of new territory, finding new foods and new sexual partners. However, it also comes at some cost, namely that of confronting new sources of danger. Some kind of compromise between extreme novelty-seeking and its absence could have proven to be the optimal solution (Bardo et al., 1996).
These days, with life-long monogamous mating being a moral ‘norm’, an attraction to novelty could seem puzzling. However, the current situation might not reflect what was normal in earlier evolution. Fisher (2004, p. 134) proposes that ancestral humans might have formed a bond with a mate ‘only long enough to rear a single child through infancy – about four years’. In group living, it could then have proven genetically advantageous to ‘divorce’ and find another partner.
Humans compared with other species
Novelty in non-humans
The role of novelty is called the ‘Coolidge effect’, after US President Calvin Coolidge. The story, which might be apocryphal, has connotations that are anything but Calvinist and will hopefully bear one more repetition.
President and First Lady Coolidge made a visit to a farm. On arrival, they were allocated to separate tours. Mrs Coolidge noticed a cockerel that was particularly sexually active and asked whether he was able to maintain such performance all day. ‘Yes, indeed’, replied the guide. Mrs Coolidge answered ‘So, point that out to the President.’ When the President got to this point, the technician directed the President’s attention to the sexual prowess of the cockerel. ‘Does the cockerel mount the same hen all the time?’ asked Coolidge. ‘Oh, no, he mounts a different hen every time’, replied the technician. To which President Coolidge gave the response that immortalized him in behavioural science: ‘You tell that to Mrs Coolidge!’
The adaptive value of the Coolidge effect is clear in terms of the spread of the male’s genes. Traditionally, most emphasis has been placed upon the effect in males, but there is one report that female rats are excited by a novel male (Ågmo, 2007). Hrdy (1981) notes the arousal of sexual desire by novelty (i.e. a partner other than the mate) in females of a variety of non-human primate species, such as marmosets. What function could it serve?
Hrdy suggests several possibilities. First, there is sperm competition. If the present mate is substandard, it might not be good to be attached exclusively to him. Second, there is the issue of confusion of paternity. If a female mates with several males, each of them might be the father of any future offspring. Hence, assuming that they can remember their sexual encounter, each might offer some minimal level of support, for example protection and food-sharing or at least not showing aggression. Hrdy speculates that there is not an abrupt transition between non-human and human primates. Rather, there is continuity. Thirdly, non-reproductive mating could offer the female an opportunity to assess the male as a viable partner and potential father, for example to assess his dominance. She could trigger competition between males as part of such assessment.
Novel males can revive sexual motivation even in females who are already pregnant. Hrdy describes (1981, p. 144):
an aggressive sexuality – by human standards, nymphomaniac – which goes far beyond the necessary minimum for ensuring insemination.
Link to humans
Kinsey et al. (1948, p. 589) concluded:
that the human male would be promiscuous in his choice of partners throughout the whole of his life if there were no social restrictions.
A number of males in their study remarked that though they desired relationships outside the marriage, they would always resist this on moral and social grounds. By contrast, the researchers marshalled evidence that female desire was much less concerned with variety, including the case of female homosexuality. They continued (p. 589):
there are a great many human females who find it incomprehensible that so many human males should look for sexual relations with women other than their wives.
Given women’s relative sexual modesty, Hrdy reflects on earlier evolution characterized by a more assertive sexuality and asks (1981, p. 176):
Must we assume that behaviour which was once adaptive is no longer adaptive? How has women’s sexuality changed in the intervening five million years or so since we shared an ancestor in common with the chimpanzees?
With concealed ovulation that occurs in human females, for much of the cycle suitors have no way of assessing when fertilization is possible and hence the female can keep them ‘hanging on’.
A focus on peculiarly human features
General principles
Consider the enormous variety in what different people desire sexually. One person seeks an endless supply of partners, whereas another is perfectly happy with life-long monogamy and is shocked by any suggestion of extramarital sex. For some, the desire for variety is such that sexual behaviour becomes addictive, ‘out of control’, whereas most manage to integrate their sexual activities within the remainder of their lives.
As just noted, although novelty plays a role in both sexes, its effects appear to be stronger in men. The gay scene of San Francisco in the 1970s–1980s, prior to awareness of AIDS, can be used to exemplify sex differences in arousal by novelty. It also avoids the complications inherent in heterosexual sex (i.e. different willingness by men and women to engage in casual sex). Whereas a number of gay men achieved astronomically high numbers of partners, lesbians were modest in their number of partners. Gay men commonly cruise in the search for casual sex partners, whereas gay women rarely do so (Buss, 2003).
Novelty plays a differential role even in advance planning of sexual activity. In terms of desired variety of partners, a study by Miller and Fishkin found a large difference between the genders (Buss, 2003). Only female resistance stands as a brake on the expression of male desire for novelty. Novelty also plays a role in pornography, directed primarily to males.
The brain has the property that, for many men and women, desire can be especially aroused by some degree of uncertainty and novelty. It can be that chance and totally unexpected glance or brushing of arms against each other that sets off desire at high intensity. Of course, too much novelty or uncertainty might trigger fear rather than desire, so there is an optimal level. These observations prompt the search for regions of the brain that are parti
cularly sensitive to these factors. Investigators now have some promising leads involving dopamine, which they can link to evolutionary considerations: why has evolution produced a brain with such sensitivity?
When a relationship is fresh, not only is there novelty as such but the novelty triggers each partner to try harder, in terms of gestures, dress and grooming, and so on. So, a virtuous circle arises. Alas, over the years, a virtuous circle can easily turn into a vicious one, with loss of desire triggering a reduction in the effort invested in trying to be attractive to the partner.
Long-term relationships
Loss of sexual desire is an important contribution to dissatisfaction within marriage or other long-term partnerships. In one sample of women, loss of desire corresponded to loss of novelty (Sims and Meana, 2010). Desire was no longer spontaneous but neither was it triggered externally by their husbands.
Another factor could be the generation over time of new associations between the sexual partner and consequences of contact. At first, the partner would be enjoyed in a context of novelty and excitement, for example dating and holidays together. Then with the arrival of a mortgage, children and the added need for washing of clothes and dishes, new associations are formed, those with the mundane, if not distressing, chores of everyday life. An incentive model would suggest where possible the introduction of novelty into any ‘satiated relationship’, for example by changing locations of sexual activity, routines, dress, appearance or by joint viewing of erotic material. Surprisingly, a study in Germany found that, within a stable relationship, sexual desire declined more strongly in women than in men (Klusmann, 2002). The author could not explain this, since the Coolidge effect was thought to apply more to males than females.
How Sexual Desire Works- The Enigmatic Urge Page 22
