Archive for the ‘Men’s Health-Erectile Dysfunction’ Category
Husband and wife repeat the following sentences:
“I’m afraid to thank you.” “And I’m afraid to thank you.”
“If I thank you, you’ll . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“And if I thank you, you’ll . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“My mother never thanked my father.”
“And my father never thanked my mother.”
“My brothers never thanked each other.”
“My sisters never thanked each other.”
“I don’t want you to thank me.”
“And I don’t want you to thank me.”
“If you thank me, I’ll …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“If you thank me, I’ll . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“Nobody in my family ever appreciated me, and I don’t appreciate you.”
“And people in my family didn’t appreciate me, and it’s hard for me to appreciate you.”
“I appreciate you anyway just because . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“And I appreciate you just because …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“And I’m grateful to you and it’s all right.”
“You’re grateful to me and it’s all right.”
“And you’re grateful to me and it’s all right.”
“I’m so grateful to you for being you.”
“And I’m so grateful to you for being you.”
“You make me grateful to be alive.”
“You make me appreciate other people.”
“Thank you so much for being kind to me.”
“And thank you so much for being kind to me.”
“When I think about your kindness, I want to cry.”
“And when I think about your kindness, I want to cry.”
“If I cry, I’ll …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“And if I cry, I’ll . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“I’m so grateful to you and I don’t care if it makes me cry.” “And I’m so grateful to you and I don’t care if it makes me cry.”
“You’re welcome. And thank you.” “You’re welcome.”
Players: Husband and wife. Activists: Both. Setting: Home.
Game Plan: Most often, a couple whose sex life is constricted by political correctness (or, in the case of religious extremists, moral correctness) is acting out unconscious competitiveness. This competitiveness is based on narcissism—that is, on the need to bolster lagging self-esteem by defeating the spouse through gaining political and moral superiority. A wife may rule her husband by continually citing rules of feminism that he is breaking, and a husband can rule his wife by continually citing the rules of religion that that she is breaking. Not that there should be no rules or that they should never be cited; but some people, as I have noted, misuse them to put their spouse on the defensive or to gain an advantage that will allow them to defend against their own feelings of low self-esteem and envy.
One of my patients, grew up feeling repulsed by his mother’s feet, which he said gave off a foul odor. She used to put her feet on his lap while they were watching television, knowing that they would annoy him—then laugh at him when he became angry at her. As an adult, his relationships with women were brief, usually ending after he had sexual intercourse with them. At that point, he would find something about them that disgusted him and quickly reject them. Often some part of their body would disgust him.
The phenomenon of transference and its relation to sexual attractiveness is most clearly demonstrated in the therapy relationship. At some point during therapy, and particularly during psychoanalytic therapy (since in psychoanalytic therapy, the therapy relationship is itself seen as the main agent of change and therefore is intensely analyzed), many patients develop an erotic transference toward their analysts. In other words, the patient falls in love with the therapist. This happens no matter what the therapist looks like—or even smells like. Whatever the case, the patient suddenly becomes enraptured with this counselor, who becomes irresistible—and the patient comes at the analyst with sexual overtures of every variety. Psychoanalysts have discovered that sexual attraction is definitely something that has psychodynamic roots and can be cultivated.
Now comes the hard part of the game: talking about their feelings. As with previous games, this is the crucial step; without it, the game remains a shallow piece of acting-out. The couple should lie facing one another, and talk about what it felt like to be a man or a woman, what they wanted from each other, how they felt sexually, and what they remembered from the past—particularly their childhood. They should be candid about the negative feelings that came up. The man may say, “It felt kind of good not to be a man; not to have to initiate sex and risk rejection.” The woman may say, “It felt strong to be a man—I could make all the moves and didn’t have to restrain myself.” He may say, “You know, I got in touch with how much I’d like to be a woman, and how much I resent women—and you.” She may say, “I got in touch with how much I hate men and their arrogant attitudes about their penises.”
This conversation can go in many directions. The important thing is to let the conversation continue to go wherever it will—no matter how embarrassing, risky, or seemingly insane.
“What does it look like I’m doing? I’m cleaning the house. I’m giving it the thorough cleaning it needs. I’ve finally understood that if I want it to be done thoroughly, I’ll have to do it myself.”
“Have you gone crazy?”
“No, I’ve finally become sane and realized that the house has to be kept in a certain order. You’ve been right to clean it and arrange it as often as you do, but you haven’t gone far enough. It needs much more.”
“Yes. What have you been lying around for? Get out of bed and give me a hand—the baseboards are filthy!”
“I know, but there are still coffee stains on them. You need to really scrub them. Use the chlorinated Ajax.”
“May I ask why you’re in the nude?”
“That’s part of the cleaning process. I need to be in the purest, most natural state in order to convene with the natural state of the world and of our house. Cleanliness is next to virginity.”
“And what is the natural state of the world?”
“The natural state of the world? My dear, the natural state of the world is one of disorder and filth. Only through hard work and constant vigilance can we overcome this disorder and filth. Now please get up and give me a hand.”
Taking up first the matter of repeated sex offenses, one must always bear in mind the occasional age differences between the sexual psychopaths and the other offenders. Among the offenders vs. children the two groups are of the same age and have essentially the same number of sex-offense convictions, the average being 2.1 for the sexual psychopaths and 2.0 for the other offenders. Among the aggressors vs. adults the average number of convictions is 2.3 for the sexual psychopaths and 1.9 for the other offenders, even though the latter are an older group. We suspect that this reflects an attitude which we encountered in some clinicians—that rape of an adult female is indicative of serious psychological disturbance only when repeated several times. Among the incest offenders the sexual psychopaths had slightly fewer sex offenses, 1.5 vs. 1.8 on the average, but they were also slightly younger; hence the difference may be discounted. Among the homosexual offenders vs. minors the same situation prevails, the sexual psychopaths being younger and having somewhat fewer offenses (2.3 vs. 2.5). Among the exhibitionists the sexual psychopaths averaged 3.2 offenses whereas the other exhibitionists averaged 4.7. Most of this large difference may be attributed to the great age difference, the sexual psychopaths being on the average ten years younger. In a decade an exhibitionist can easily accumulate a number of convictions. Among the homosexual offenders vs. children there is a substantial difference in the average number of sex offenses, the sexual psychopaths having fewer (1.8 vs. 2.7). An age difference of three years exists, but this is insufficient to account for the discrepancy. An even larger age gap, nearly five years, exists among the homosexual offenders vs. minors, yet the average number of sex-offense convictions is very similar for the sexual psychopaths (2.3 convictions) and the other offenders (2.5).
Since 12 of the present offense categories are based on age of the offender’s victim or partner, at first thought any further analysis of their ages may appear superfluous. However, when a closer inspection is made of the age distribution within the groups, particularly among children and minors, some variations worth noting can be found.
The four median ages show a range of 1.6 years, and while this is not a strong difference, it suggests that the pedophilic heterosexual offenses and aggressions are committed against somewhat younger children than are the incest and homosexual offenses. One finds that about twice as many heterosexual offenses and aggressions were committed against children under seven than were incest and homosexual offenses. On the other hand, it is also clear that pedophilic homosexual offenses show the strongest tendency to group in the oldest age-category—between nine and eleven years. This doubtless reflects a greater concern with sexual techniques in these offenses rather than with simple fondling, which is more typical of the heterosexual pedophilic offenses. The differences in sexual practices in the various offense categories are presented later in the chapter.
The youthfulness of some of these children is rather surprising, and an inspection shows six were age three, all girls; 17 girls and two boys were age four; and 35 girls and six boys were age five. With children of these ages being involved, there can be little surprise at the typical community response and distress, even though the physical contact may have been minimal.
The present data on the ages of persons subjected to exhibition are spotty, but in the sample of 288 total offenses there were two cases of children age three, one age four, one age five, and four age six, all females.
To the extent that data are available, 69 per cent of the heterosexual offenses vs. adults, 88 per cent of the incest offenses vs. adults, and 63 per cent of the homosexual offenses vs. adults involved objects from sixteen through twenty years of age. Here can be sensed the concern of the law-enforcement arm of society with persons it feels are still under a legal age, whether they are subjected to duress or not. That the incest cases vs. adult daughters are drawn from a group that is even more exclusively under twenty-one is due probably to other factors. Daughters over twenty-one who can be coerced into or are interested in an incestuous relationship are rare, and the incidence at even nineteen and twenty drops off rapidly. In the homosexual offenses vs. adults the large proportion of sixteen-year-old partners and the small proportions of older partners probably reflect society’s concern more than age preference.
From an over-all comparison of ages, the following conclusions seem apparent. Heterosexual pedophilic offenses are committed against somewhat younger persons than are aggressive, incestuous, or homosexual pedophilic acts. In the offenses vs. minors, nonforce heterosexual offenses tend to cluster at the top of the age-bracket 12-15, but this is less evident in aggression, incest, and homosexual offenses. Among the offenses vs. adults reporting bias tends to inflate the figures for the sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds in the heterosexual nonforce offenses, but this does not hold for the aggression offenses in which the distribution is even. The emphasis on youth in the homosexual offenses vs. adults is largely the result of selectivity in arresting, while in the incest cases youthfulness of partner is almost assured by the situation.
The term “animal contact” is so loose as to require a more precise definition before discussing incidence and frequency. In the first place, we limit animal contact to activity occurring after the onset of puberty with living vertebrates other than human. Secondly, we limit the term to unequivocal and specifically sexual activity entered into with sex gratification as the prime motive. We exclude, for example, the masturbation of dogs which is a not infrequent experiment by juveniles prompted by curiosity or humor. Likewise, we exclude such incidental experiences as having a penile erection from the weight and warmth of a pet seated on one’s lap. Consequently, for the purposes of this study, we have by definition limited animal contact to instances in which the penis of the human was inserted into the vagina, anus, vent, or mouth of the animal, or (much less often) where the penis of an animal was taken into the mouth or anus of a human male. Penile penetration of the body is the criterion. This gives a clear and simple definition at the cost of only a few borderline cases.
The majority of animal contact is with either domestic mammals (cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and dogs chiefly) or with chickens. Obviously it happens more often among rural males than among urban, and this factor has been taken into account in our comparisons. Animal contact also tends to be a monopoly of youth—usually occurring between puberty and the late teens. In most cases it is also a transitory phenomenon, which vanishes forever as true sociosexual activity is established.
In many ways one can legitimately view animal contact as simply another technique of self-masturbation, using an animal for stimulus rather than a part of one’s own body or an inanimate object. Groups that exhibit high masturbatory frequencies tend also to include relatively large numbers with experience in animal contact.
Since animal contact is a minority phenomenon and usually restricted to a few occasions over a short period of time, statistical treatment is inevitably hampered by small sample size.
Reaching orgasm with a companion of the opposite sex without coitus is, as we have demonstrated in previous volumes, a not uncommon phenomenon in the United States. Nevertheless, it is a relatively unimportant one in terms of frequency and interest, since from an occasional interest in reaching orgasm by fellation, the vast majority of males seek orgasm from coitus rather than from petting.
The median frequency for those who experienced orgasm through premarital petting ranges, between puberty and age twenty-five, only from 3 to 5 orgasms per year. With such a narrow range comparisons are not profitable.
In mean frequency the range is wide enough for comparisons, extending from about 3 a year to once every one and one-half weeks, but the picture is one of confusion. Some groups, such as the homosexual offenders vs. adults and the control group, maintain an essentially uniform frequency between puberty and twenty-five, yet fluctuate widely in rank-order position; other groups reveal increases or decreases or both.
The number of orgasms obtained by premarital petting is small in all groups, never exceeding 4 per cent of the total outlet. While we have not routinely asked the married men bow often they reached orgasm with their wives through, means other than coitus, our impression is that the proportion of total outlet constituted by petting to orgasm may be as great or greater in marriage than before marriage because of the greater frequency of mouth-genital contact.