At the beginning of the latter twentieth century there used to be believed that the orgasm, likewise love, would be a deceit from mother nature to trick us into reproduction.
Such notion had its precedence if not a certain rational background. So far sexual relations work out for reproduction, and that’s out of question. How so could sexual pleasure be just that?
Up until recently it wasn’t possible to tell whether some sexual relation would generate a child or not. The establishment would uphold marriage as a predestined embodiment, essentially, of the reinforcement on safety and education for the future generations as the shape of things to come.
Within this context, inducing sexual pleasure had played not so clear a part. It was reckoned that sexual desire would reach out further beyond procreation, although nothing else could be said instead.
That medieval fad, of which all erotic arousal would encompass some reward of a kind plotted along the beaten track of reproduction, got overhauled on grounds biological.
Nobody seemed to care for the fact that nature bears the means necessary to advocate literacy without any pleasant “retribution” of its part.
What if the ant takes pleasure in humping a burden equal its body weight along by hundreds of meters?
The deemed importance for emotional balance of sex, and of the erotic pathways as a source of profound satisfaction. None the less, as such remarks remain somewhat vague.
With the studies of Wilhelm Reich light could be shed on the understanding of two so-unlikely problems, however intrinsic…what means sexual pleasure in psychological terms, additionally, what’s the likelihood between personality traits and social structure?
Most people would reckon that their sexual life is not satisfactory. These people seem capable of performing coitus in all its essence, despite feeling thereafter frustrated, downcast, overburden or shallow.
A considerable amount of men think of themselves as big time achievers in terms of sex. Even though their girlfriends most often than not would think otherwise. They perceive themselves as if getting left behind, mistreated or ill-treated.
On the other hand, a sexual affair some times might provide patrons sensations and feelings of the highest level.
Such unforgettable liaisons, by the overwhelming tenderness, total detachment and bliss tandem sweet and profound.
These are commonly experiences that come to endorse the distinction established by Reich, between a mechanical sexual aptitude and an organic sexual aptitude (by him coined as orgasmic – a knack to indulge into ultimate pleasure and unconditional surrender, so much for the partner as of intercourse).
According to his words, the capability sexual mechanical comes linked to loath and angst rather than loving.
Both sex goers seemed more into getting over and done with it as fast as they could, certainly because they felt not at ease.
In contrast the orgasmic sexual capacity would ensue in an essentially tranquil atmosphere. In that both sexual partners profoundly switched into each other, exchanging strokes even more subtle, enthralling and jolly. The underlying philosophy is of total surrender and all out solitude, and of wholly detachment from the innermost level, as in dreamless sleeping.
What on earth or heaven could explain such profound discrepancies in sexual behavioral? In brief, to Reich accordingly, would be either the presence or absence of what he namely “the body armor of character”.
Roughly speaking, refers to the “cast” of ilk, that very melting pot of “masquerade” and demeanors that we employ into rapport with others so much so as “smokescreen” for our inner self.
By Jonatas Dornelles
Anthropologist
| 
