Female erotic desire

Dominant discourses of sexuality

Discourses provide the language, meanings and practices that are drawn upon in the construction of subjectivities and agency. Agency is the ability to use discursive means to create meaningful and livable representations of the self. The dominant discourses foster and maintain power relationships and structures by defining normality. Requests to conform to the norm do not have to be explained, because the idea that there is a desirable behavior, thought or emotion is one that is widely shared (Foucault, 2000; Gavey, 1997). Large heterogeneous and complex cultures invest less into stabilization via conformity. Greater variability enables the existence of parallel discourses and therefore of “mixed messages” about sexuality (Fafejta, 2016).

Gagnon and Simon (1973; 2004) use the metaphor of sexual scripts to explain social norms and expectations within sexuality. These scripts are the result of social learning and provide meaning to biological events (e.g., pleasure). Cultural scripts draw upon the available discourses within a culture, while people adjust their interpersonal scripts in relation to their expectations. Intrapersonal scripts include fantasies and unique combinations of the cultural and interpersonal scripts.

According to Hollway (2011), the psychodynamic approach used in postmodern psychology combines psychoanalytic ideas and object relations theory, and takes emotional investment into account. Emotional investment explains a person’s motivation to repeatedly take up certain positions in discourses, as it brings the person satisfaction or “enjoyment” (e.g., participating in unwanted sex to maintain a relationship). Through the psychodynamic approach we can gain an understanding of the history of an individual’s positioning within discourses and the subsequent production of subjectivity and explain why only some of the many available discursive positions are desired (Hollway, 2011). This interpretive framework is especially useful for exploring intrapersonal sexual/relational scripts that give rise to the needs, wants and desires which are communicated to the partner(s). This self-knowledge and these communication skills constitute agency, especially in liberal discourses.

The traditional discourses on sexuality (religious, predatory, respectful) are heteronormative and promote sex differences. These tend to disembody female sexuality.

In traditional religious discourse the subject is controlled through guilt. According to Kleinplatz (2012) the gendered dualism of body/soul that reached its zenith in the Victorian era locates female desire within the Madonna/whore distinction with its heavy moral connotations. Only the Madonna is ascribed legitimacy and agency, and desire is closely tied to procreation or the fulfillment of marital duties.

The traditional predatory discourse is also known as “the male sex drive discourse” (Hollway, 1984). Here desire is ascribed to the “conquering” male subject, and the woman is discursively positioned as its object. Women situated in this discourse derive their agency from their desirability (self-objectification) and capacity to eroticize the other’s desire (projection and identification with the predator’s desire). Being “a good object” requires so-called token resistance. Token resistance is a symbolic form of resistance that raises the value of the conquest for the man. This practice leads to variation in how refusal is understood in sexual encounters. Overcoming resistance goes hand in hand with a sense of entitlement reinforced by the notion of men having a “natural and uncontrollable” sex drive (Fafejta, 2016; Hollway, 1984).

The traditional respectful discourse or “have-hold” discourse (Hollway, 1984) is mostly to be found in scientific discourses on sexuality. Sexologists, psychologists, and counselors provide advice on how to improve marital satisfaction and mutual understanding. They stress the differences between the sexes in terms of expectations, needs and ways of fulfilling them. Agency is based on the successful performance of masculinity and femininity. Women are constructed as the “gatekeepers” of the male drive, while men are supposed to respect their partner’s wishes. The practice of “gatekeeping” provides women with a primary strategy for rejecting male sexual offers and for putting aside their own desires in order to avoid the risk of becoming pregnant or being devalued if they “give men sex” in the wrong circumstances (before commitment and intimacy) (Hartley & Drew, 2001). Once in a committed and intimate relationship, women describe sex as “relationship hygiene”. Sex is framed as a means of maintaining the relationship. Although pleasant, the scheduled sexual activity is performed to promote the wellbeing of the partner/couple. Sex can be undesired, but consensual (Brown-Bowers et al., 2015). Female desire is channeled into love and care. A “pleasing woman” sexually “feeds” her adult partner. In this motherly care, desire fades sooner or later. Put simply, maternal behaviors and sexual (incestuous) scripts are mutually exclusive (Perel, 2007).

In traditional discourses, sexual objectification is one of the most salient cultural practices affecting desire in women. Many scholars have pointed out that objectification and subsequent self-objectification play a major role in reducing desire. According to Nussbaum (1995), objectification involves one or more of the following: denial of autonomy, agency, interchangeability, violability, ownership, denial of subjectivity. Objectification elicits feelings of body shame and depression, lowers self-esteem and self-efficacy and thus limits agency (Garcia et al., 2015; Harrison & Fredrickson, 2003; Phillips & Slaughter, 2000; Tolman et al., 2006). Women who support traditional notions of femininity (slimness, importance of appearance, importance of romantic relationships) score higher on body shame (Hurt et al., 2007). Body shame is correlated with low sexual satisfaction (Claudat & Warren, 2014; Wiederman, 2000). Recent acculturation studies suggest that socialization via shame feeds into different levels of feeling and expressions of desire (Benuto & Meana, 2008; Brotto et al., 2011, Woo et al., 2010; Woo et al., 2012).

Sexual objectification is an interpersonal phenomenon that occurs in both public (being evaluated as a sex object) and private. The experience of unwanted sex (being used as a sex object) seems to be most detrimental to the subjective feeling of desire in women (Ramsey & Hoyt, 2014). There are many kinds of unwanted sexual experience: undesired but consensual sex, sexual abuse, sexual coercion and rape, repeated rape (Tolman, 2002; Impett & Peplau, 2002). In everyday interactions undesired but consensual sex is the most conspicuous cause of diminished desire in women with partners (Spurgas, 2013). Affiliative motives for consent are usually a wish to please her partner or deepen the emotional connection. Aversive motives include wishing to avoid conflict, getting her partner to do something for her, placating her partner or circumventing her partner’s bad mood. Women who consent to unwanted sexual activity for aversive motives report lower levels of physical pleasure and satisfaction and subsequently low levels of desire (Birnbaum, 2010; Impett & Peplau, 2002; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010). In the long-term desire usually does not survive affiliative reasons for engaging in unwanted sexual activity (Hall, 2004; Perel, 2007). Simply being aware of objectifying practices and interactions within traditional discourses does not mean subjects can evade being exposed to them by positioning themselves within liberal discourses. Nevertheless, if subjects are aware of the positions they are keen to take up or are forced to take up, they may decide to alter their response or remain silent when the target of certain conversational gambits (Gavey, 1997).

Liberal (democratic) discourses are emancipatory and tend to enhance the agency of the subject and democratize intimate relationships. In this discourse the emancipation of female sexuality may be articulated in terms of equality (through the law, practices in the public and private spheres, and through subsistence), the sovereignty of the body (access to information, access to contraception and abortion) and positive attitudes to one’s sexuality (self-acceptance of the body, acceptance of needs and feelings, decision making and negotiating in intimate relationships). The ideological substrate of democratic discourses reflects the social, cultural and power dimensions of sexuality. Central to them is equal demand for mutual pleasure in consenting individuals. In this discourse agency is based on knowledge and the ability to reflect and negotiate one’s expectations and desires. This kind of agency is deemed difficult to attain in many socio-political and relational circumstances (Diiorio et al., 2003; Fine & McClelland, 2006; Tolman, 2002), as is the case, for example, with the multidimensional biopsychosocial model of sexuality (Tiefer, 2010).

It is possible to distinguish between two discourses: liberally-liberal and liberally-intimate.

The liberally-liberal discourse, also known as the “permissive discourse”, has been described by Hollway (1984) as allowing any form of sexual expression that is not harmful to the parties involved. As in the predatory discourse sex can be separated from the relationship (recreational sex), but satisfaction is demanded by men and women alike (Fafejta, 2016). The subjects of this discourse are allowed to sexually objectify one another so long as nobody feels used. Although both sexes are ascribed sexual desire this does not mean that subjectivation removes the old limits or taboos.

In the liberally-intimate discourse sexuality is legitimized within a stable relationship between partners of any sex or gender. Priority is ascribed to intersubjectivity and gender fluidity, not to genitality and sex differences. The relationship provides sexual satisfaction and fulfills the emotional needs of both partners. Love and support are communicated through intimate physical contact (touching, kissing, and cuddling) and emotional closeness in a relationship valued by both parties is also maintained in this way.

The liberally-intimate discourse is a matrix of embodied erotic desire as postulated in contemporary psychodynamic discourse, which has adapted to the linguistic turn in social sciences and is inspired by feminist emancipatory efforts. Erotic desire can be conceptualized as a whole-being intersubjective experience of pleasure and excitement under the conditions of perceived trust and security. Intersubjectivity presumes differentiation and the ability to become the subject and object of another’s desire. The traditional notion of care entrenched in the female role excludes men from adopting the position of a good Winnicottian object as fathers. This creates/reinforces the hierarchical economic and political social structures that reinforce the autonomy/care, public/private, man (subject)/woman (object) dichotomies. This dichotomy is believed to be the product of traditional heteronormative discourses. For sustainable sexual and intimate fulfillment, it is important for both partners to balance the tension between the desire for self-assertion (independence) and for caring for another (dependence) (Benjamin, 1990; Chodorow, 1978; Flax, 1980; Fonagy, 2008; Lichtenberg, 2008; Eichenbaum & Orbach, 2012; Perel, 2007; Schnarch, 2000).

The regulation of two basic affects leads to pleasure and excitement. Lichtenberg (2008), who has written on psychodynamics, is interested in integrating attachment theory and object relations theory. He highlights the importance of pre-linguistic embodiment. The capacity for pleasure is developed in infancy through sensual interaction (holding, caressing, bathing, tickling etc.) with primary caregivers (Fonagy, 2008; Lichtenberg, 2008; van der Kolk, 2014). Excitement is an affect that is connected to active exploratory efforts, object manipulation and stimuli seeking behaviors (Lichtenberg, 2008). That is to say that in sensitive, responsive and pleasurable care the body is made to feel good at an affective level (onset of emotional regulation) in nonverbal interactions even before infants develop language. During this process the ability to recognize one’s needs and dis/trust another’s willingness and ability to meet those needs is developed. Both are deemed essential to agency in the liberally-intimate discourse.

At the emotional regulatory level, the inhibiting affects of “inappropriate” exploratory efforts (e. g., masturbatory self-exploration) are shame and guilt, linked to the fear/anxiety of losing a connection with a significant person. According to Lichtenberg (2008) it is the anxiety-driven parental shaming of pleasurable activities (curious exploration, masturbation) that creates the sense of prohibition and separates sensuality from sexuality. Later on in adolescence and adulthood negative emotions (shame, guilt, fear, and anxiety) restrict both pleasure and excitement and lead to lower levels of trust and security and thus to a reduction in desire (see effects of objectification above).

Early interactions are governed by the way in which the parents position themselves within the discourse (e.g., believing that infants should cry themselves to sleep rather than being doted upon) which contains messages about gender roles and the available sexual identities as well as appropriate behaviors. Gender socialization is also based on parental beliefs concerning differing the bodily capacities of boys and girls. Traditional beliefs shape care giving practices, which, for example, tend to limit exploratory efforts in girls due to their perceived vulnerability (Mondschein et al., 2000). Lichtenberg (2008) concludes that exploration and sexual excitement are more typical in male sexuality and passivity, while receptivity to stimuli and sensual pleasure are more typical in female sexuality (Lichtenberg, 2008). The latter is more likely to be devalued. The liberally-intimate discourse questions the difference in values and portrays agency as being based on the ability to eliminate differences and re-create subjectivities anew in erotic encounters.

Data analysis: an example from a larger study

In order to illustrate the epistemological framework outlined above, we shall now turn to a brief analysis. The aim of the qualitative research was to find out the following: How do women who self-identify as heterosexual experience desire? What are the forms and meanings of desire and how do ways of experiencing it vary over the life span? The story of one female participant has been selected from a larger data sample (Škubalová, 2017). The data on this participant were obtained during three narrative based interview sessions with a six-month interval between each. The interviews lasted about one hour and were held in a quiet environment chosen by the participant. The method of recruitment was opportunistic, based on the participant’s interest in exploring her desire with the researcher. Informed consent was obtained verbally. The participant rejected the invitation to check the transcribed data.

A combination of interpretive methods was employed: narrative reconstruction, the agency focused discursive approach and the metaphor of polyphony.

Subjective experience and a sense of self are central to both the narrative and constructionist approaches in psychology (Avdi & Georgaca, 2009). In the narrative approach subjectivity is viewed as being internalized by the person and expressed through (polyphonous) speech. Discourse analysis draws upon social constructionism and traces the ways in which subjectivity is construed through interactional processes and the deployment of wider discourses. In both approaches, subjectivity is seen as fluid, multiple and contradictory (Avdi & Georgaca, 2009).

The nature of the discursive analysis influences the data collection/production and to a certain extent enables us to separate the text from the producer. From a distance it presents subjectivity as fragmented and “governed” by language from outside. By contrast the narrative approach to data collection and narrative analysis organizes utterances into a coherent narrative, which is closer to the act of experiencing oneself as a more or less coherent and continuous subject who “reigns” over the language. For the purposes of this data collection/production the narrative interview seemed less intrusive. For this analysis the polyphony metaphor (e.g. Tolman, 2002) was adapted from an analysis of a phenomenological description of an erotic call (Aanstoos, 2001). This erotic experience can be described as an embodied intentional erotic call, response, play and fulfillment (Aanstoos, 2001). Only an embodied subject/object can be brought into interaction with another embodied subject/object to continue the play and fulfillment. Therefore the call and the response must be heard by both sides: a clear, resounding and somewhat harmonious call “I want it with you”.

The polyphony enables the researcher to listen to the various voices of the respondent (narrative self) and pay close attention to the subjectivity and agency or lack thereof (discursively positioned self). The voices indicate how desire is experienced in the context. Some voices may be muted or too quiet. Where this is the case the missing sign (?) is used.

I distinguish the following possible voices: “I” – I as a subject endowed by will, agentive instance; “Want” – one’s conscious relationship with one’s wants, affirming one’s needs, relationship with oneself; “It” – the body’s voice. It includes various forms of sensual and sexual contact and bodily capacities; “You (with you)” – the other as an attachment object, that is to say recognized as a subject. The unconscious motivation and experience of desire as an impulsive tension leads to “I” being replaced with “That”. In this mental structure desire is not experienced as “owning the wanting” (Perel, 2007), but as “being owned by wanting”. Understandably replacing “I” with (?) poses a serious ontological problem for the modern subject and its agency.