Intercourse vs. Orgasm
Not long ago, a Canadian research team discovered something surprising:
In the recipe for great sex,
orgasm is optional. Said the head
researcher, "There is plenty of
evidence that most people believe that the secret to sexual fulfillment is
technical, that it's about better manual
and oral stimulation techniques."
In fact, "You could have terrible sex with orgasms and despite orgasms,
but you could have optimal
sexuality without orgasm."
So where did humans get the idea that sex must always lead to
orgasm? At first I suspected our primitive mammalian mating program,
which
delivers a reinforcing "Yes!" with each climax. Turns out there's more to
the story. Both the Church and the experts who compiled the
Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) have contributed to
the belief that intercourse must be fertilization-driven
(or
orgasm-driven).
Church father Augustine of Hippo (b. 354 CE) is well known for his
prayer, "Grant me chastity and continence...but not yet!" Less well
known
is his conclusion that because sex is a consequence of the "animal" in
man--and animals have no interest in using sex to foster love or
unity --
the proper use of sex in marriage is strictly for breeding. Whoa!
Actually, the infamous bonobo chimps, whose males sport supersize
testicles to produce lots of competitive sperm, nevertheless engage in
"rather
casual and relaxed" sexual activity for social bonding, frequently
without orgasm. And macaque male monkeys ejaculate in
scarcely
half of their copulations. That's probably more than the
Church fathers would have wanted to know, but the point is that primate
sex often
serves goals other than fertilization or orgasm.
Augustine's error has been used to fend off some of sex's most
uplifting gifts. In the last century, when Belgian and French Catholics
discovered that
gentle intercourse without orgasm was a "means of achieving a more
perfect, more spiritual conjugal love," the pope
condemned it. Some Church
authorities actually declared "incomplete sexual acts" mortal sins.
When it comes to orgasm, Church authorities are not the only
conservatives. Whenever I've asked experts about doing a few weeks of
research comparing the stress levels or healing speeds of couples engaging
in orgasm-based sex with couples practicing gentle intercourse
without the
goal of orgasm, I received the same advice: "That wouldn't get past our
ethics committee because sex without orgasm is
considered a paraphilia, or
sexual disorder." (However, this pro-orgasm experiment passed:
electrical devices were
implanted in
women's spines to see if they would produce climaxes via remote
control.)
Now I have no doubt that people have sometimes avoided orgasm during
sex for pathological reasons. But benefits from the practice of
gentle
intercourse without orgasm have been reported so often, and in so
many cultures, that emotionally healthy people must have made
this
choice too.
In any event, are our codified convictions serving lovers? They create
unnecessary distress and frustration in the less orgasmic or
anorgasmic --
and their mates. They also indirectly bolster the assumption that pursuing
sexual urges to exhaustion is a neutral, or even
beneficial, practice. For
instance, a man recently assured me that, "men ejaculate 1-3 times a day."
Persuaded as he is that men are veritable
semen fountains, he might be
startled to learn that when subjects engaged in mere a "10-day depletion
experience," ejaculating an average
of 2.4 times per day, their sperm
output remained below pre-depletion levels for more than
five months.
What other not-so-welcome, subtle changes accompany this one, given the
powerful influence of our
delicate reward circuitry (the brain
mechanism behind our drives) on
equilibrium and mood?
I suspect that orgasm feels great not because it is an
unqualified health or psychological benefit, but because our genes want us
to expend
our effort on their top priority: propelling them
into the next generation.
The neurochemical "Yes!" of climax may not indicate that we're equipped
to engage in orgasm-driven sex every time we feel sexual desire.
Just as a
love of fine chocolate doesn't mean that we'd be wise to eat an entire
box. A 20-year old found this out the hard way:
We knew we weren't going to see each other for a while so we had sex
4 times in the night and once in the morning. The next day, I had weird
feelings like I was pulling away from her or didn't want her or
something, which cannot be because I know I love this girl. I feel very
fatigued, light headed or zoned out, and depressed. This is not like me.
As I learn more about the effects of sex on the brain, I realize it
makes sense to take into account how recently, or intensely, we have
climaxed. It appears that frequent, or especially intense, orgasm can
create
tolerance (a need for increasing stimulation to achieve future
orgasms). It can also lead to satiety and
habituation, which may show up as subconscious irritation,
out of sync libidos, performance
demands and insecurities. And it may promote the
use of risky sexual enhancement measures as lovers try to overcome their
built-in
biological brakes with force. Not to be alarmist, but Viagra, for
example, has been associated with sudden, irreversible blindness and has
been blamed for many deaths through
heart attack and stroke. Perhaps we are pressuring ourselves to reach
unrealistic benchmarks.
Meanwhile, gentle, relaxed intercourse without orgasm is "off limits"
(for Catholics) and "dysfunctional" (for the rest of us). As a
consequence, if couples don't know about, or have fallen out of the habit
of, using other daily
bonding behaviors to sustain the sparkle in
their relationship, they
are quite likely to rely only on sex with attempted orgasm(s) to
keep their union strong.
What would bonobo life look like if one of the chimps' favorite
social-bonding techniques, rubbing genitals, had to result in
mutual climax--
or produce disappointment and resentment? I think
zoologists would see a lot of cranky chimps.
A more relaxed approach to sex may prove especially beneficial for
pair-bonders like us. Our nervous system appears to reward us for
both
close, trusted companionship and the exchange of selfless, affection. In
other pair-bonding species, "sexual behavior is neither
especially
frequent nor especially fervent." Many interactions between mates take the
form of resting together, mutual grooming, and
"hanging out." (The
Myth of Monogamy)
Maybe our limitations exist to urge us toward less driven affection.
Perhaps it's time to expand our lovemaking repertoire to include relaxed,
non-goal-oriented sexual activity with the primary goals of closer bonds
and increased contentment.
Courtesy of
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
|
