Nothing new
Anthony Storr
The Psychology of Sex H.J. Eysenck & Glenn Wilson (Dent £5.95) When I am asked to review yet another book on sex, my heart sinks: but it is fair to say that this short book does fill a gap. What Eysenck and his co-author have tried to do is to provide a popular review of research findings relating to sexual attitudes and functioning in Western civilisation. In this aim they have succeeded; and, at the end of each chapter, append a useful list of references. However, their claim that 'we have written this book without any sort of ideological commitment' cannot be sustained. Both are committed to a Pavlovian, behaviourist, determinist view of man, and are biased against, and intolerant of, psychoanalysis and its derivatives. Are the psychological differences between men and women culturally determined, or are they chiefly the consequence of innate biological factors? As one would expect, the authors come down heavily on the side of biology. Men are not only more dominant in every society which has been studied, but are also 'more impersonal in their sexual behaviour, more easily excited, more pleasure-orientated, less inhibited sexually, more permissive, more attracted by illicit sexual practices, less easily dis gusted, more highly sexed, more interested in nudity and voyeurism, in prostitution and pornography.' Men and women have equal intellectual capacities; but women tend to be superior in verbal skills, whilst men have better visuo-spatial abilities. Nothing new here; but what is more interesting is that the differences in sexual behaviour and attitudes between members of the same sex are greater than the differences between men and women. Throughout the book the authors rightly insist that both men and women show extraordinary diversity in their sexual make-up, and conclude that `no sexual rules, no laws, no ideals will ever cover introvert and extravert, neurotic and stable.'
Some of the authors' findings are banal. It has long been recognised by Psychotherapists that sadism and masochism are generally found together in the same person, yet Eysenck and Wilson express surprise that research confirms this. Recent investigations of sexual fantasies will be reassuring to those who think their own fantasies unusual, or that it is abnormal to have fantasies during sexual intercourse. Now that people are encouraged to think of masturbation as not only normal but a good thing, it is amusing to find the pendulum swinging the other way. Sexually deviant fantasies probably persist, and may interfere with adult adjustment, because masturbation has such a powerfully reinforcing effect upon them; and behaviourial treatments of deviation rely upon extinguishing this association. However, the authors' reliance upon faulty conditioning as the main cause of such deviations as fetishism is simplistic and has a curiously old-fashioned ring about it. After describing a rather complex sequence of ritualised deviant sexual behaviour which cannot possibly be explained simply in terms of conditioning, the authors say regretfully; 'It is difficult even to guess at the dynamics involved, let alone verify them scientifically, yet analysis at the metaphorical level seems inescapable.'
Analysis at the metaphorical level is inescapable if we are to understand any but the very simplest aspects of human behaviour, and it is absurd to pretend that this is not so. This is why the behaviourist approach is so inadequate. Human beings have an inner, subjective life of the mind Which cannot be left out of account if they are to be understood. Yet this is precisely What Eysenck and his co-workers want to do. I am not against, some behaviourial techniques of treatment for certain kinds of sexual problems; but Eysenck claims too much for behaviour therapy, and, in spite increasing ncreasing evidence that PsYchotherapies derived from Psychoanalysis are effective, continues to dismiss them as useless. I wonder how much discussion Eysenck actually has with people who are practising behaviour therapy today. Those that I know personally have entirely dropped the idea that behaviourial techniques can be used impersonally, without reference to the patient's whole personality and relationship with others. Moreover, they recognise that when behaviourial methods are successful, they have to take into account the 'transference' relationship between the patient and the therapist. Eysenck accepts none of this. His ideal is that neurotic disorders can and should be treated with the same kind of impersonal skill with which a dentist fills one's teeth. Teeth are surface excrescences; but most neurotic symptoms and sexual difficulties are not. They are bound up with the whole of a person's personality; and no treatment which neglects this fact is likely to meet the patient's need.
Previous page
