|
To:
oped@nytimes.com Re: Orgasm and the conflict between our human and animal natures Date: Wednesday, 18 May 05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor,
If, as Dr. Lloyd
suggests (see "A
Critic Takes On the Logic of
Female Orgasm" in
Tuesday's NYT),
Something that often
seems to be missing from
scientific discussions of the
animal (evolutionary) basis of
human sexuality is the
question of human awareness:
the one thing that really does
seem to distinguish, at least
some of us, from other
animals, and beautifully
described in the first part of
the biblical story of Adam and
Eve: " . . . . the eyes
of them both were opened and
they realised that they were
naked . . . " (That the
ancient author then goes on to
describe how God curses them
for taking the first step away
from being an animal, towards
becoming human, instead of
praising and encouraging them,
makes me question whether we
have been worshiping the right
(concept of) God for the past millennia
and a half or so).
It is a mistake, I
believe, to equate ejaculation
with the male orgasm. I
suspect that many a man (and I
may be one of them) has never
experienced full Orgasm.
Unfortunately, there is no
English word I know of that
describes, as the German word,
"Hingabe", does,
what orgasm is really all
about. "Surrender"
is one translation, but that
does not do it justice,
because of too many passive
and negative connotations.
"Affirmative and joyful
surrender to the moment, the
action, the feelings one is
experiencing and to the
consequences thereof", is
about as close as I can get. In
that famous
When-Harry-Met-Sally scene in
which Sally imitates an orgasm
sitting in a cafe, the only
coherent words she utters are
, "yes",
"yes". The feeling
this expresses - and when it
is for real it is absolutely
and passionately sincere - is
"yes, I want your sperm
to come flooding into my body and impregnate me with your
child". That, of course,
is the greatest complement
(which is a bit of an
understatement) that a woman
can make to a man: "I
want YOUR child". For the
man who experiences full
orgasm it is similar: the
passionate desire to
impregnate the woman with his
child, and to accept
responsibility for them. This,
after all, from an
evolutionary perspective, is
what it is all about, and why
it really is (or should be) an
act of love (thus the not so
euphemistic as I once thought,
"to make love").
So long as we were
(still are) just animals there
were (are) no complications,
but "awareness" of
the consequences of what we
are doing changes all that. My
body, with its millions of
years of sexual programming, wants
to impregnate the gorgeous
woman I've managed to lure
into my bed, but "I"
(whose awareness only
developed in the past few 1000
years) don't want to take
responsibility for her and the
child we may be creating.
Having a full orgasm under
such circumstances is - at
least, in my experience - not
possible.
The same applies to
women, of course, who want to
enjoy sex, but don't want to
get pregnant.
Mature, responsible
people use contraception when
they wish to avoid creating a
child, and the
responsibilities that go with
it. But I'm not sure that
really solves the dilemma: the
conflict between millions of
years of sexual programming
that wants us to make babies
and some very recent cerebral
(and spiritual?) evolution
that, under most
circumstances, doesn't.
For mature,
responsible people, having sex
with someone they really love
should be more satisfying (and
likely to result in orgasm)
than with someone they don't,
because even if they don't
consciously want to create a
baby, they can surrender to
their animal drives without
having a bad conscience about
it.
I must admit that I
find it rather disturbing when
people say that they have
their most satisfying sex with
casual partners. I don't
understand how they manage to
avoid or deal with the
conflict that surely must
arise between their primitive,
animal nature on the one hand
and their more enlightened
(aware and responsible) human
nature on the other.
|
|
