How Sexual Desire Works- The Enigmatic Urge

by Frederick Toates

  The two patterns of insecure attachment also have characteristic associations to sexual desire and behaviour (Cooper et al., 2006; Davis, 2006; Gillath and Schachner, 2006; Mikulincer, 2006). In an established relationship, hyper-activation can be associated with sexual demands and coercive attempts to control the partner, as well as hyper-vigilance for any sign of loss of interest by the partner. This pattern, sometimes described as ‘obsessive’ and ‘dependent’, is linked to chronic worries about one’s sexual attraction value and ability. It can be associated with the motive for sex being primarily that of trying to confirm one’s value, to obtain reassurance and care-giving and to avoid abandonment. There is a tendency for those aspects of sexuality that overlap with affection, like hugging, to be particularly attractive.

  By contrast to this, deactivation is associated with very different interactions with sexual desire. Sexual desire can be inhibited but, if not, it can take an egocentric and impersonal quality that de-emphasizes or actively avoids intimacy and reciprocity (Gillath and Schachner, 2006). The sexual preference is for those aspects of behaviour not associated with intimacy, for example intercourse rather than kissing. Somewhat paradoxically deactivation can lead to sexual promiscuity, even though this does not necessarily bring correspondingly high levels of pleasure. Again this suggests a fracture line between wanting and liking, as well as pointing to the misleading use of the notion of ‘high sex drive’ to account for the number of sexual partners (Schachner and Shaver, 2004). There is a tendency for the motive underlying sex to be one of proving oneself, including to others (e.g. ‘gaining status’), rather than sexual desire as such. This strategy is particularly associated with those who exert coercion, which appears to arise through a failure of social skills and thereby an inability to negotiate the social world of consensual sexuality (Davis, 2006).

  Selective attention

  Earlier we discussed the role of novelty (Chapter 11). However, too much triggering of desire by novelty might be counterproductive and there appears to be functional value in preserving an established pair bond from too much outside interference. Thus, relative to uncommitted individuals, people who are in a committed romantic relationship tend to pay less attention to sexually-attractive others, suggesting a kind of ‘perceptual defense’. By an objective measure of arousal, committed people pay less attention to images of attractive others and are less strongly aroused by them (Miller, 1997). They also attribute less attractiveness to others. Miller writes (p. 765): ‘Even if the grass is greener elsewhere, happy gardeners may not notice.’ Conversely, a high level of distraction by others was predictive of later breakdown in the relationship.

  So, although, as a largely conscious choice, people in committed relationships spend less time than uncommitted ones in looking at attractive others, they might still be susceptible to automatic capture of attention by attractive others (Maner et al., 2008). Might there be circumstances that can lower such an automatic tendency? Male and female participants were set a task that triggered romantic thoughts and feelings about their partners. After performing this task, they showed less strong automatic distraction by attractive others than they did after performing the control task of simply reviving happy memories. The effect was specific to sexually attractive others, rather than being a general effect on attention.

  In another study, participants were first exposed to an image of someone they found to be attractive, other than the established partner (Gonzaga et al., 2008). Subsequently, triggering romantic thoughts of the established partner reduced the frequency of intrusions into consciousness of the attractive other.

  From evolutionary considerations, there is a delicate balance between the strategies of fidelity and infidelity. A time of romantic attachment would be one when, to preserve the bond intact, the scales could be tipped against infidelity and this could be served by diverting attention from other attractive individuals. It was speculated that the neurohormone oxytocin is released by romantic thoughts and feelings and it plays a role in drawing attention away from the other target and back to that of the committed bond (Maner et al., 2008).

  When sex and attachment fragment

  Sexual desire and attachment are distinct systems, which might or might not coalesce in their actions. People differ in the strength of these interactions; for some, sex and attachment operate independently. For example, in the so-called Madonna–whore complex, a man might affectionately regard his wife as saintly but express little sexual desire towards her, while his lust is satisfied with sex workers, whom he regards as whores (Money, 1990). Occasionally, this can take the form of sexual violence towards women outside the Madonna relationship, the ‘Madonna’ being blissfully unaware of the husband’s other role.

  In another form of dissociation, an individual feels sexual desire towards one gender but feels attachment towards a person of the other gender (Diamond, 2006). For example, a person might have a heterosexual sexual desire but a homosexual romantic attachment or vice versa. Diamond suggests that such diffusion of desires across two systems might help to explain the claim (more usual in women than men) that ‘I am attracted to the person more than to a particular gender.’ This is exemplified by one woman’s account (Diamond, 2006, p. 288):

  I guess my attraction to women isn’t really all that sexual…My immediate gut-level physical response is to men, but I want to marry a woman because I find women more beautiful, and I have more enduring emotional bonds with a woman. I guess I find women magnetic. I’m not sure that’s the same as a sexual attraction.

  Asexuals sometimes feel a desire for romantic attachment towards another individual but with a total absence of sexual desire towards anyone (Brotto et al., 2010).

  Aggression, power and dominance

  Sadly, sexual desire can interact with aggression and domination. Overwhelmingly this refers to male coercion on others, whether male or female, though female coercion also occurs occasionally (Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson, 1994). Male violence is manifest in violent pornography, which is targeted to a male audience. Quite what constitutes aggression needs some unpacking. Inflicting mild damage and pain is sometimes done by both men and women on their partners during consensual sexual interactions and probably serves to enhance the experience by increasing arousal (Zillmann, 1984). This would not be classed as aggression.

  Sexual frustration following strong sexual arousal can trigger aggression, particularly if the woman is perceived to have insulted the man by a refusal to engage in sexual activity (Zillmann, 1984). For males with power and a desire to harass women, when words linked to power are primed the attractiveness of those women over whom they have power is increased (Bargh et al., 1995).

  Biology or social or both?

  Debate has raged over whether there is a biological component to the link between male coercion and sexual desire. Feminists have argued that the link is an exclusively human one and arises from peculiarly human aspects of society in which males dominate (see discussion in Pavelka, 1995). Doubtless there are features of the link that are exclusively human, such as media portrayals of women as objects, the existence of violent pornography and the cultural transmission of rape myths such as that women secretly want to be raped. However, this should not preclude consideration of two aspects that could be called ‘biological’:

  Male aggression related to sexual behaviour is evident in other species apart from humans, where such a culture is, of course, not present. Non-human primate species exemplify such mating-related coercion.

  In non-human species quite close to us, for example squirrel monkeys, there is a proximity of brain regions controlling sexual and aggressive behaviours (Zillmann, 1984). This could suggest an automatic spill-over of excitation from one system to the other.

  However, Zillmann (1984) argues (p. 75):

  the vast majority of people – both in Western and non-Western societies – fails to behave violently in their sexual endeavors despite the same anatomical and functional constitution of th
eir brains.

  This could point to an important role of learning based upon experience, learning which is facilitated by the plasticity of the brain and, in the case of violence, the proximity of some regions underlying sex and aggression.

  The roots of human aggression

  Much research on sex and aggression has studied incarcerated rapists. However, some of the underlying motivational processes appear also in a study of non-incarcerated college males (Lisak and Roth, 1988). Men who use manipulative, coercive and aggressive tactics in their sexual relations with women frequently feel themselves to have been humiliated, hurt and ridiculed by women. They tend to be impulsive and feel a need to be assertive, with control frequently being lost under the influence of alcohol. Sexually aggressive males show a motivation of dominance.

  Agnew (1992) writes (p. 59):

  Anger results when individuals blame their adversity on others, and anger is the key emotion because it increases the individual’s level of felt injury, creates a desire for retaliation/revenge, energizes the individual for action, and lowers inhibitions.

  Adversity creates arousal which can act to facilitate a range of behaviours.

  Anger as motivation

  Anger often arises from the advance towards a desired goal being blocked (Carver and Harmon-Jones, 2009; Lewis and Bucher, 1992). It is particularly aroused when one individual perceives another as being responsible for thwarting these aspirations. Anger triggers forms of behaviour that seem to be appropriate for correcting the situation. Viewed in these terms, unreciprocated sexual desire or unwillingness to sexually cooperate would seem to be just such a situation with the potential in some people to trigger anger and thereby threats or other forms of coercion.

  What sort of an emotion is anger and how might it link to sexual arousal? At first glance, anger, surely a negative emotion, and sexual desire, surely positive, might seem to be opposite states of brain/mind. However, although this is doubtless true, there is reason to suppose that an excitatory interaction can arise between them (Carver and Harmon-Jones, 2009). Central to this is the distinction between approach and avoidance (Chapter 8). Desires for sex or food are clearly approach motivations, whereas fear and disgust are avoidance motivations, but what is anger? Anger appears to be an emotion underlying approach towards goals, acting to secure the goals of the angered one, often involving the inflicting of discomfort on someone else. From studies on children, the amount of frustration felt when a goal is blocked appears to bear a positive relationship with the strength of approach motivation.

  Carver and Harmon-Jones investigated the activity of the brain during anger. Approach motivations are associated with a relative increase in front left brain activity and angered individuals tend to show such an increase, particularly when it is perceived that action is possible to correct the anger-triggering situation. Testosterone has the effect of promoting aggression and anger as well as libido. Elevated levels in humans are associated with dominance-seeking, being assertive and violent, as well as relatively low levels of fear.

  Investigators distinguish between two different types of aggression: predatory (‘stalking’) aggression and rage-induced aggression (Schore, 2003). Tragically, much evidence suggests that both types can interact with (‘facilitate the expression of’) aberrant sexual desire.

  Consequences of anger expression

  It is sometimes suggested that an explicit display of anger has a cathartic effect – ‘to let off steam’. This is misleading. Although a display of anger might make the individual feel better in the short term, alas its effect appears also to be one of positive reinforcement, that is it increases the future probability of such a display of anger when in a state of frustration (Lewis and Bucher, 1992). This is of obvious importance in the case of sexual violence, which could well be reinforced by both sexual and aggressive consequences of the action in combination (Chapters 20 and 21).

  Sexual arousal as a trigger to aggression

  Anger can excite sexual desire but is there a reciprocal link, from sexual arousal to aggression? Under some conditions, an angered man shown a highly arousing sexually explicit film appears to exhibit increased anger as a result of the ‘spill-over’ from sexual arousal (Donnerstein and Hallam, 1978). What appears to have a particularly toxic effect on violence towards women is a combination of anger and viewing a sexually explicit film that involves aggression towards a woman (Donnerstein, 1980). Quite apart from increased arousal, it could be that the depiction of a female victim cues later aggression towards other women.

  In various species, including humans, drugs that boost dopamine activity in the brain amplify both sexual activity and aggression, whereas drugs that boost serotonin reduce both of these (Everett, 1975). This suggests at least some common bases in the brain.

  A case study in the fusion of aggression and sexual desire

  Doidge (2007) treated a patient (called ‘A’), a ‘single, handsome young man’, suffering from depression. A had a history of troubled relationships with emotionally disturbed women and yet it was precisely women who treated him badly that he found attractive, while caring and considerate women bored him. A’s mother, an alcoholic prone to violent rages, had been abusive towards A and his sister. A’s father was absent most of the time. The relationship between A and his mother had been a ‘highly sexualized’ one. A was described as having ‘excited but furtive’ memories of his interactions with his mother. Although during his childhood A felt rage towards his parents, he acquired an erotic taste for violence. A wished to break free from his attachment to the type of woman who was destined to harm him, and to be able to form viable relationships. Doidge described A (p. 122):

  One of his most tormenting symptoms was the almost perfect fusion in his mind of sex with aggression…Thoughts of sexual intercourse immediately led to thoughts of violence, and thoughts of violence to sex. When he was effective sexually, he felt he was dangerous. It was as though he lacked separate brain maps for sexual and violent feelings.

  Thus, either stimulus triggered the ‘desire’ processes underlying both sex and aggression. Doidge explains this in terms of the plasticity of the brain; repeated early pairings of aggression and sexuality led to their fusion. As the saying goes ‘neurons that fire together, wire together’. Therapy consisted of trying to sever the link between the two desires, a process of unlearning, and constructing two non-overlapping brain maps.

  Drugs

  Drugs exemplify that insight into so-called ‘normal sexual desire’ can be gained by observing interactive desire.

  Alcohol

  Alcohol has various effects upon sexual desire and its link to action, which tend to combine to increase desire and the chances of it leading to sexual behaviour. Alcohol both increases excitation and tends to decrease inhibition, so it might best be avoided when trying to resist temptation.

  People commonly report significant aphrodisiac effects of alcohol, and in one study this was particularly the case for women (Rawson et al., 2002). Somewhat paradoxically, alcohol can reduce the level of arousal as measured at the genitals but increase the feeling of subjective arousal (Rosen and Beck, 1986). This was known to William Shakespeare:

  Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery; it makes him, and it mars him.

  (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 3)

  Alcohol tends to make people look more attractive, summarized in the expression ‘beer goggles’. Just the belief that one has been drinking alcohol (without actually doing so) can increase subjective sexual arousal, make people look more attractive and lead a person to think that he or she is more attractive to others relative to the assessment made when sober (Bègue et al., 2013), again evidence of a peculiarly human feature of sexuality. This effect led Bègue et al. to entitle their paper ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.’ Alcohol lowers people’s ability to detect asymmetry in the faces of others. Since
symmetry is attractive, alcohol thereby increases a person’s attraction value (Halsey et al., 2012).

  Alcohol triggers what is known as ‘alcohol myopia’, a tendency to focus attention on the immediate environment. Intoxicated people are likely to put weight upon the excitatory cue of a partner’s physical attractiveness and their own arousal rather than on the more abstract, probabilistic and remote inhibitory factors of disease potential, pregnancy risk or offending morality (Abbey et al., 2006). Intoxication is associated with decreased likelihood of using a condom (MacDonald et al., 2000). Placed in a simulated situation of sexual opportunity but without access to a condom, more intoxicated males indicated willingness to engage in unprotected sex than did sober participants. The situation of arousal was salient whereas the risks were not. However, the groups were equal in their description of this behaviour as irresponsible.

  The popular image of alcohol, that it lifts inhibitions, is often accurate, but there are limits on its validity. More precisely, intoxicated people experience difficulties with response inhibition where there is a ‘compelling predominant response’ (Abbey et al., 2006). If inhibitory cues are made salient, then alcohol does not necessarily lift inhibitions. For example, in one study, patrons entering a bar had a message ‘AIDS KILLS’ stamped on their arms. Making inhibition more salient in this way reduced the disruptive effect of alcohol on safe decision-making (MacDonald et al., 2000). The advice would be to have condoms available before getting into an intoxicated state. Suppose that the cues promoting condom use are made salient. Alcohol use might then paradoxically be associated with an increased use of condoms.