Variations

In combination with last class, we covered 6 variations to sexual response. So instead of me re-writing all of them out I am simply going to answer the question that was asked of us near the end of class. The question was which of the 4 approaches (being Masters and Johnsons, Freud, Kaplan, and Basson) to sexual response do you find most compelling? Least compelling and why?

I being a female find Basson's approach most compelling. Her view takes a female look at sexual response. She sees the key ingredient for a happy, healthy sexual encounter and that is intimacy both emotional and psychological relation with one’s partner.  I agree 100%. I am an emotional person. I am the type of girl who meets a guy, finds something to like about them and instantly connects with their emotional side. I agree that every sexual encounter needs to have some form of intimacy because without that basis there is no room for the relationship to prosper. Speaking solely from experience, I recently got out of a 3 year relationship. I feel that without some form of social or psychological intimacy, that relationship would have ended a lot sooner. He and I shared an almost friendship where we depended solely on one another and it did (within that time) have a huge impact on how we functioned within other aspects of our relationship. In agreement with Basson, without some sort of emotional connection or intimacy, I think both partners would feel frustrated and overwhelmed with emotion.

The response that I find least compelling would be Freud's perspective. Simply because I feel Freud has a dominant opinion to which is almost a forceful statement. That there is only one type of orgasm for women, vaginal and that all other forms of orgasms are deemed "not good". I feel like he is almost (through his own perspective) still trying to make women feel that if they only have clitoral orgasms that they aren't as important. When in reality, even women who can't have orgasms at all are unique, special and 'good'. Lastly, i disagree with him in that he sees vaginal orgasm to be desirable and that it illustrates healthy psycho-sexual development. I feel like he is saying woman who can't achieve vaginal orgasm aren't developing properly in any aspect in life? Maybe I'm looking too much into his ideas, but for the above reasons, I find Freud the least compelling of all the variations. Thanks!