Sexuality and Emotions

Sexuality is playing and pursuing pleasure. Indeed, for adults it is the most enjoyable play and if you don’t agree then you don’t know sexuality, or you don’t know it well. However, sexuality is the playful pursuit of pleasure that takes place between two people in a specific and intense encounter. It is not possible for this to happen with anyone and, for this reason, it is also an opportunity for intimacy. Some clarifications need to be made.

Sexuality can also be experienced in solitude and is still playful and pleasurable, but it is a last resort, when a sexual relationship is not possible. It can also be practiced in public or in a group, but in these cases it is (unconsciously) exploited to avoid something, to demonstrate something or to state something. Such exploitation of sexuality represents a psychological defense, which disturbs pleasure and gets in the way of intimacy. In this respect, morality and promiscuity are two sides of the same coin.

Sex is always an intimate experience. A one-night stand, even when paid for, also has a certain level of intimacy (pleasurable or regrettable). This does not mean that whoever is having sex must always be aware of the intimacy that he or she is experiencing. Even in the stable relationships of couples, intimacy can be low and in general these disasters are not even recognized. If emotion is not blocked or distorted, there is pleasurable intimacy in one-night stands, even if not intense, which involves a little joy for the contact experienced and a bit of sadness for “what is missing”. With prostitution the sadness is often hidden, but it is simply enormous for both parties. In couple’s relationships where intimacy is deep, the joy of this harmony intensifies the pleasure of the playfulness of sex and the pleasure of physical contact. Satisfying and really intimate sexual relationships are rare and human beings do not usually cry over this, simply because they do not realize. Normally people find it difficult to even realistically imagine the playful aspect of sex, the pleasure of sex and the many aspects of intimacy. The fear of sorrow and tears lead people to limit their own feelings, expressive freedom and also the capacity to desire and imagine the possibility of fulfillment. If sensitivity is blocked and desire is weak, the frustration will not be perceived as such.

In these pages I will not write about everyday sexuality and intimacy, but about their complete expression, corresponding to the potential of human beings. Even if I do not believe I can facilitate any change, I hope to be able to stimulate useful reflections.

The difficulty of having a reasonable discourse on sex comes from the fact that the theme is always examined with one of two slants. The first (moral and moralizing) is aimed at defining what is considered acceptable and unacceptable based on principles believed to be absolute or some cultural traditions believed to be unchangeable. The second (“scientific”) is aimed at what is considered “healthy” or “pathological” in sexuality even if, in reality, it is aimed at acknowledging what fits into the prevailing cultural norms. In fact, the sexological evaluations often change as these norms change and not following sensational “discoveries”. While physicians and biologists construct empirical theories and exchange ideas on the basis of the observation of methods or factual observations when they do not agree, sexuality academics basically construct “conceptions” and therefore they can state (almost) everything and deny (almost) everything with the same legitimacy. Therefore, prevailing “scientific” ideas depends on the cultural climate of the time.

I think that a good theory of sexuality should not take into account sexual behaviour in relation to norms born out of particular traditions and not even in relation to statistical norms. A good theory of sexuality should compare sexual behaviour with people’s sexual potential. And I am referring to all the relevant possibilities together: the intensity of physical satisfaction and the intensity of the emotional relationship with the partner. If sexual behaviour produces modest or limited satisfaction and does not activate strong emotional involvement with the partner, it is my opinion that it should be considered repressive sexual behavior. Not “sinful”, “unnatural” or “pathological”, but repressive: it can be completely normal and even culturally legitimate, but it tends to limit the expression of individual potential rather than liberating it.

Sex works best if it produces a “high” (a temporary loss of conscious control during orgasm) and a strong physical release of tension accumulated in the stimulation phase. One theory that was fundamental in my education, at least for certain important aspects, was that of Wilhelm Reich. I have to recognize this debt because Reich at least attempted to develop a real theory of sexuality. In my opinion he did not succeed in his attempt and this is why I abandoned his energetic-biologistic frame of reference many years ago, despite sharing his basic understanding of some facts. In practice I saved the core of Reich’s conception of sexuality and I found a more suitable language for a clear and coherent discussion in other theories (or in a selection of other theories).

Sexuality, in the broad sense of the word, includes all types of behaviour through which we try to satisfy desires relating to a particular area of intimacy. Unfortunately, in childhood, intimacy (in the broadest sense) is not experienced in a safe and satisfactory way and this fact leads, in later years, to strong tendencies towards avoiding any type of intimacy or searching for partial or distorted (but reassuring) modes of intimacy, also in the area of sexuality.

Children do not have one simple desire, but instead a real need to feel loved and accepted. This does not normally happen or it happens in an unsatisfactory way and this in turn prevents children from feeling satisfied and feeling safe. And so they develop attitudes, behaviour and convictions to make themselves less vulnerable. Being too young to process the sorrow connected with negative interpersonal experiences, they are only able to limit their own emotions. Carrying out these operations unconsciously they continue, even into adulthood, to “protect” themselves from the frustrations which by now could be easily tolerated and, paradoxically, as a result of such limitations and distortions of their emotions they do not act in appropriate way for reaching real contentment, in intimacy.

The pursuit for sexual pleasure with a partner, if not inhibited by more or less conscious alternative goals, develops in various ways which fit into a well-defined general pattern: feeling desire; showing desire for another person; beginning to feel pleasure in physical contact; the “play” stage in which physical stimulation increases; reaching the point in which stimulation must be released, and then from sexual intercourse to the orgasm and therefore an intense physical and motor release of accumulated tension and finally, after the orgasm, the sensation of physical satisfaction and deep intimacy with the other person.

Often there is no distinction between a climax of pleasure and an orgasm, but such a distinction is important because only an orgasm indicates at a quantitative and qualitative level the complete release of arousal and the arrival at complete intimacy with the partner. In a climax one has a pleasurable release of the stimulation accumulated in the preliminary phase and the erotic “play” phase, but this release is “localized”, meaning it only affects the genitals. On the other hand, in an orgasm there are involuntary movements and feelings regarding the whole body which are accompanied by a temporary alteration (or “loss”) of waking consciousness. In practice, during the orgasm a person “lets him or herself go” to his or her own feelings and to the partner: he or she renounces control and “trusts” both his or her own body and partner. During the orgasm, stimulation arriving at its peak and being felt in the genitals is not released in a local relaxation, but with the liberation of all the muscles in the body: a wave moves over the whole body spreading from the genitals upwards and finally down to the legs. The pelvis moves in harmony with the rest of the body and the person lets him or herself go through this wave until he or she feels completely relaxed and satisfied. In a climax maximum stimulation is transformed into the calm, while in an orgasm the calm is reached via violent and intense and yet sweet and harmonious liberation of all the body’s muscles. An orgasm liberates the self in a trusting openness to the other person. The climax is “permitted” while the orgasm is “liberated”. The orgasm of women involves the clitoris but is aroused deeper in the vagina.

The difference between climax and orgasm is not only about the final part of the sexual experience, because it depends upon the quality of the entire experience, starting from the previous stages. If the initial desire is weak or the arousal is not intense, orgasm is not possible. This means that if there is no real passion it is difficult to arrive at a “technically” acceptable conclusion. However, passion depends on many factors: not only on the partner being really desired, but also on the fact that person feels free to express him or herself with that partner. All the embarrassment, fear, calculations, interests in the results of “performance” over the experience, get in the way of the growing arousal. In some cases they prevent the completion of the experience, but even if they do not have such frustrating effects, they make the stages leading up to orgasm “tepid” rather than “arousing” and they limit the psychological and physical qualities of the whole experience. In fact, in these cases there is no real sexual interest and sexual desire comes second to other desires (essentially defensive desires of being able to “earn” acceptance).

The desirable and possible mood after sex involves the gratitude towards the partner who has been both the sexual “object” of his or her own desire and a participating and embracing subject.

Obviously the orgasm can be “prepared” by any preliminary erotic game (in a climate of complicity and reciprocal acceptance), but it cannot be “liberated” in pregenital relationships. The orgastic movements (both for men and women) are not possible in oral and anal relationships where they can easily cause or provoke pain. In individual or reciprocal masturbation the orgastic movements are impeded less, but even in these situations the reciprocity in the arousal and the intimacy of embrace is lacking. For this, even if at times couples can understandably desire experiences of sex or love without the aim of release of tension in the genitals, the marked preference for sexual games over sexual intercourse suggests the dominance of defensive desires (not sexual, but sexualized) over desires for sexual fulfillment.

In other words, the lack of interest in or the fear of genital intercourse (in women or men), however it is rationalized, constitutes a repression of the orgasm. Such a reading allows the exclusion of both the moral assessments and those based on the comparison between health and illness, because each of them superimposes a pre-constructed model onto the deep understanding of pursued objectives.

The path which leads to orgasm is identical in males and females. In this sense, equality between the sexes is a fact. The “typical” characteristics attributed to the “female sensitivity” or “manhood” are prejudices and reflect the repressive tendencies culturally addressed in different ways to men and women.

Sexuality is an active pursuit for pleasure both for men and women. The male aggression in “penetration” fully corresponds to the female aggression in “taking” and the female tenderness to embrace fully corresponds to the male tenderness to search for embrace. Also at other levels some real misunderstandings have become common place. There is no reason to believe that women are more emotionally involved in sexual relationships than men are. The prevalence of (distorted) sensitivity in women and the emotional detachment in men is just a culturally (repressively) generated habit, but in these cases both women and men limit their sexual and emotional potential.

Even the idea of the “man as the hunter” and the woman as anchored in the home life is without foundation. In the same reading, it should be demystified that the maternal instinct stops sexual desire when children arrive or that “male social relations” make men more attracted by work (or by a “fling”) than by the family environment, or that the menopause or andropause stop sexual desire and the capacity for sexual enjoyment.

What limits the expression of individual potential is fear of deep emotions and in particular fear of sorrow. Early sorrowful experiences in infancy lead children to fear the expression of all desires in interpersonal relationships. In adult life, certain cultural myths can be used in order to rationalize fear and to favour certain manifestations of (self)repression, but these myths are only the surface of the problem. In fact, when the problem does not exist, males and females act as they feel and therefore try to look for pleasure and intimacy in the most intense way, because they are not “preoccupied” with alternative objectives.

We can distinguish between the experience of having sex and that of making love by taking into account the benevolence felt towards the sexual partner. I believe we can liberate ourselves from many misunderstandings if we think of love as being synonymous with feeling benevolence. In this way the concept could be applied in various environments and could relate to offspring, friends, nature, animals etc. and not only partners.

The act of simply having sex, without a strong emotional tie, is nevertheless included within the sphere of intimacy and requires esteem (i.e. a physical and psychological appreciation of the partner) and a minimum fondness (i.e. a bit of love). It is not possible to have sex in a satisfying way with people who are unpleasant or with whom there is tension. Unfortunately this happens in many cases, but in such cases, in my opinion, sex is had for non sexual reasons (to not miss the opportunity, to not feel “alone”, etc.).

There can also be unsatisfying sexual experiences (unfinished) and partially satisfying (with climax but without orgasm) even if it is sex with someone who is loved. In this case love is present, but it is “complicated” (and limited) by unresolved personal issues or relationship problems. The best thing to do is not have sex unless you really want it, because if you have unresolved personal issues, or if in that moment there are misunderstandings or distance with your partner, you cannot really be available. The idea that making love helps in getting over problems is a poorly founded idea. Personal or interpersonal problems ought to be resolved with clarification at an emotional level.

Both in having sex for fun and for love (looking for physical fulfillment and intimacy with a loved person) it is necessary to feel sexual arousal and desire sexual fulfillment. It seems important to me to distinguish between two possible ways of being aroused. Again, I will not make a moral or “psychopathological” distinction, I will bear in mind only the expression of personal potential in sexual relationships..

Every body is made up of parts, but also has its specificity as a “whole”. In the body of men and women, some parts are obviously more “erogenous” than others, but there is a clearly defined difference between the pathways of arousal focused on the parts and those which, although including stimulation from various parts of the body, are focused on the whole body of the partner. I am referring to the physical pathways of arousal and I am not in anyway contrasting a “mental” arousal with a “purely physical” arousal. Sexual arousal is physical and inevitably linked to what you think of and feel for your partner. I am simply clarifying that physical arousal can be completely focused on one part of the body or can be “diffused”. The more the arousal is “partial” or “focused” on one part of the body, the weaker the overall path of arousal. It is not only a quantitative difference but also qualitative. The more one person is attracted by a part of the partner’s body, the more he or she is “taken away” by his or her (very private) fantasy. The more a person is attracted by his or her partner’s body in its whole, the more he or she is “open” to the physical and emotional contact with the partner. It is inevitable that certain parts of the body will be caressed and kissed more: it is not often that elbows are erogenous for men and women and everyone knows which parts of men and women’s bodies are generally more attractive. This is not under discussion. What I want to highlight is that the pathway of arousal (in men and women) can proceed from the parts to the whole or remain “entangled in the details”. In this second possibility, non-sexual and defensive fantasies are inevitably active; they limit the arousal pathway and therefore reaching orgasm. They can also allow for a pleasurable conclusion to sex, but they limit the expression of personal potential both at a level of pleasure and at a level of intimacy.

The capacity for sexual fulfillment is dependent on the capacity not to fear intense emotions and in particular the capacity not to fear the development of sorrow. Paradoxically, for this reason to have joyful and fulfilling sexual experiences requires being familiar with crying.

I am obviously not claiming that crying has to accompany sexual experiences, but simply that the more open you are to crying the more sexually liberated you are. Nor am I claiming that “whining” is liberating at an emotional level. Liberating crying is a physical psychological experience that is usually feared and blocked. Even in films you rarely see scenes where someone is crying “authentically”, and if the viewers do not notice something wrong then they are clearly used to not crying or crying badly.

When it is said that children cry and adults do not cry, it is nonsense. Only adults can cry, since they have the capacity to develop an internal dialogue and arrive at physically expressing and welcoming sorrow. Children can only cry in the arms of an adult who is able to hold them. When children are distressed they look for a parent and do not cry alone. Children who often “cry” alone are really “whining”, or rather expressing rage in a complicated way.

In fact children generally feel sorrow in relation to parents and for this reason the expression of sorrow is not accepted. They therefore learn to not cry, or to whine, or to avoid emotional contact with sorrowful situations. When they become adults, they tend not to cry or they cry rarely (only when the social context justifies the “rule being broken”).

As all defensive attitudes are basically defenses from sorrow (constructed in childhood but maintained, unconsciously, in adulthood), the fear of suffering and crying limits our capacity for emotional contact in general.

Even at a physiological level the defenses towards sadness and crying have unfortunate repercussions on sex. When we are crying we feel a pain “in our heart” and we feel a wave come up to the eyes. It washes over them and then goes down shaking the body in sobbing. In orgasm we feel a pleasurable arousal in the genitals and when we sense the need to release this stimulation, we surrender to orgasm which shakes our whole body. In orgasm the release of stimulation starts from the genitals, rises and goes down through the whole body more than once. In practice the wave of sobbing is very similar to that of orgasm, even if the moods are different in each case. It is worth mentioning, however, that even if the crying is painful and orgasm is pleasurable, in both cases there is the need to let oneself go. The fear of crying activates chronic muscle hypertonia and this “shell” inevitably interferes with the liberation of tension in orgasm. Unfortunately, defenses are not selective: in blocking sorrow they block everything.

Many people (in particular women) exhibit an “erotic charge”, in an exaggerated manner, which does not in the least correspond to actual intentions for having sex. These people “want to be wanted” but they do not want to have sex. On the other hand, other people have sex when they can, but with little pleasure, because they try to demonstrate their virility/femininity. Other people have sex mainly to not feel alone. When people give sexual signals or have sex, their aim might be or might not be sex. These and other examples can illustrate the fact that the search for sexual fulfillment is only possible when basic emotional situations have been “pacified”.

The freedom to have sex and, with the right person, to make love, constitutes a privileged sphere of self-expression, interpersonal contact and fulfillment. Specific sexual problems do not exist. What do exist are emotional and therefore interpersonal problems which limit or disturb sexuality.

If today’s children are accepted, welcomed and protected at an emotional level, they will become adults free from uncertainty, inhibitions or ambivalence of a sexual nature, The best “sex education” for children is a good treatment of their emotional needs. We do not only need to free ourselves from habits and prejudices, but we especially need to free ourselves from our fear and emotional conflicts.