By Holly Bloomfield, Editorial Intern
Sex in the lab. No, I’m not playing everyone’s favourite game of where is the craziest place you've ever done the deed?. I’m talking about the scientific study of sex and the legacy of the pioneers of sex research, Masters and Johnson. You may recognize the names as this research team and couple are the inspiration for the TV show Masters of Sex. Their research captured the attention of the world when they introduced the human sexual response cycle in 1966.
Master and Johnson’s Sexual Response Cycle
The goal of their research was to explain empirically the motivations of sex and the physiological states humans go through when having sex. They did this by breaking every taboo and changing the face of sex research forever: they brought people into the lab to have sex. In the 1960’s, this was ground-breaking. They largely worked with sex workers at the beginning as they were well educated in sex and were willing to participate, but later expanded their participant pool. Masters and Johnson observed and questioned the experiences of people both having sex and masturbating in a laboratory to develop their theory.
So, what did the Masters and Johnson sexual response cycle look like? It was a simple, linear model that had four phases that followed one another.
Excitement → Plateau → Orgasm → Resolution
Masters and Johnson posited that a sexual encounter starts in the excitement phase where two lucky people are in the mood; their desire increases and they become aroused, ready for action. Once the couple is fully aroused, they’re said to have reached the plateau stage in which both participants are feeling sexual excitement, often meaning physiological signs such as elevated breathing and increased heart rate among other things. Following the plateau is the orgasm phase in which fireworks fly and the world shuts off. Okay, Masters and Johnson did not explain it this way; they defined orgasm as rhythmic contractions of the muscles often paired with release of seminal fluid from the male subjects. Following the orgasm phase, they suggested the resolution phase, or refractory period, in which the body returns to its pre-aroused physiological state. As shown in the diagram below, they accounted for a much shorter resolution period for women which would allow for multiple orgasms, while men had a much longer resolution period.
Picture source: https://scisexualhealth.ca/sexuality-201-sci/figure-3-traditional-human-sex-response-cycle-of-masters-and-johnson-23-and-kaplan/
The Rise of the M&J Sexual Response Cycle
Masters and Johnson's iconic research changed science forever. One of its biggest impacts is that it denies sex exceptionalism, the belief that sex is entirely unique to all other human topics, and is therefore exempted from being studied. By bringing sex into the lab, they validated and created a path for all future research on sex. When something can be studied, it can be normalized and used to help countless people who may be struggling with some form of dysfunction or with shame. They helped change the perspective that sex is something that must stay within the home and never be spoken about, and pioneered the discussion of sex within the academic community. They took the field of sexology from Kinsey’s influential public surveys, to empirical studies. They paved the way for sex research, and in turn, sex education.
The Fall of the M&J Sexual Response Cycle
While Masters and Johnson's legacy will live on, that does not mean their model is immune to criticisms. The first criticism is that this model positions orgasms as the main and only goal of a sexual encounter. I’m not going to argue that orgasms aren’t important (they are!), but there are so many reasons to have sex. In an incredible study titled, Why Humans Have Sex, both men and women ranked reasons like: “I wanted to express my love for the person” and “I wanted to show my affection for the person” more often than “I wanted to achieve an orgasm” as motivation for having sex. By acknowledging that humans often have sex for reasons besides orgasms and removing it as the finish line, sex can become a more fulfilling experience for all partners.
Many of you may have already caught on to its second main criticisms: it’s just not that simple. You would be right for two reasons. First, the model is based on the expectation of spontaneous arousal. Spontaneous arousal describes arousal that comes on unprompted, like an Aha! moment of sexual desire. While this can definitely happen, research has shown that spontaneous desire is much more common in men than it is in women. Instead, women often experience responsive desire, in which other reasons like those listed above are responsible for the initiation of sex, with the knowledge that desire will kick in once sexual stimuli has been introduced. The excitement phase is more complex than an on and off switch. Second, the plateau phase does not always lead to an orgasm. There are many external factors that come into play when achieving orgasm, and just simply being at full arousal is not enough. Every person goes into each sexual encounter with their own beliefs, experiences and preferences: a simple model will not be able to capture a complex experience!
A Complex Model: Rosemary Basson’s Sexual Response Cycle
Dr. Rosemary Basson, the director of the University of British Columbia Sexual Medicine Program, has put forth a new model for the sexual response cycle. This model is circular, meaning there is no required start or end point. Sex can start because of spontaneous desire or responsive desire, and can end with orgasm or just because! It also aims to address some of those external factors that can lead to orgasm including closeness with a partner and appropriate context. It is thought to not only better represent women’s sexuality, but also the sexual processes of those in long-term relationships and an aging population. Dr. Basson’s model is complex, but so is sex.
Picture Source: https://www.kpact.xyz/2017/05/19/bassons_model/
Future Directions of Sex
As sexual response models are researched and developed, we will get a better picture as to what a human sexual response cycle is. An important outcome of this is re-examining perceived sexual disorders, especially female sexual disorders (FSD). If the models FSD’s were originally based on are updated or out-dated, then are FSD’s really a dysfunction, or the result of misdiagnosis? Furthermore, research will be able to step outside the artificial confines of the gender binary to capture a more well-rounded and complete picture. Sex isn’t new. Sex isn’t going anywhere. It is crucial that we keep sex in the lab to further our understanding of this natural activity that impacts everyone.
References:
- https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawpolicy/article/913/galley/17748/view/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17610060/
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/009262300278641?needAccess=true&role=button
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00926230152035831?needAccess=true&role=button
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118896877.wbiehs286