In the experiment, researchers showed computer generated life
sized projections of 53 frontal images of men of varying heights, flaccid penis
size, and body type to a group of 105 heterosexual Australian women. The
women looked at the images and rated them for sexual attractiveness.
Since the original article is not accessible, the results on the Nature blog state that that a range of
flaccid penis sizes and male body types were rated the most attractive.
At some point masculine body type (greater shoulder width to hip width) was
more important. There was not a direct correlation with penis
size and attractiveness. The graph of size versus attractiveness was
described as an inverted U-shaped curve with attractiveness falling off at both extremes. There were some remarks on the
importance of this finding not the least of which that studies like this may
make it easier to talk about an “uncomfortable subject”. I doubt that the
press will take such a nuanced approached.
As I read that last line, I thought about penis references in the
popular culture over the course of my lifetime from Woody Allen films to
Seinfeld episodes to morning radio shock jocks. I have gone through the
“sexual revolution” and noticed that very little has changed. If anything
the landscape seems to have shifted to a more male dominated perspective with
the further objectification of women and much easier access to that
content. In some of that content there is a disturbing portrayal of
serial violence (usually homicide) and sadomasochism even in prime time
television. All it takes is showing an MALSV (mature audiences, strong
language, sexual situations, violence) disclaimer at the outset to broadcast a
blend of sexual violence and gratuitous nudity. The focus from business
interests is producing as much of this content as possible combined with the
legitimization of the pornography industry. What is driving all of this?
There are two areas relevant to psychiatry that are the object of
very little research and they are sex addiction and sexual consciousness.
Consciousness in general has not been much of a focus by psychiatry since the
advent of DSM atheoretical
descriptors that in effect limited the focus of study to extremes of human
behavior. The consciousness that I
am referring to is the unique conscious state of individuals. The current diagnostic system does not
presume to diagnose individuals
Sexual addiction and other "behavioral addictions" like
eating and gambling are all the rage right now. The neurobiological
theories of reward, initial impulse control involving positive
positive reinforcement, and subsequent compulsive behavior based on
negative reinforcement are thought to apply in traditional chemical addictions
but can the same models apply to sexual behavior? The problem is that
there are vast uncharted areas connected to the midbrain and basal
forebrain structures that are thought to be substrates for addictive
behavior. Not all of the details of neurotransmission within the system
are known even though we have several cartoon versions. An analysis from reference 3 suggests in a rat model of sucrose
self administration that up to 28 regulatory proteins in various cell
structures may form the basis for the signaling involved. Despite several papers suggesting that
behavioral and chemical addictions may have the same substrates, I have not
seen any compelling evidence that this might be true. If sex can be addicting, what are the risks
of exposure and can we help people with serious problems involving their sexual
behavior?
The state of consciousness in psychiatry these days is at an all
time low. Biological reductionism and a poor understanding of the
importance of modern psychoanalysis in exploring unique conscious states may
be part of the problem. The other part of the problem is a single minded
focus on problems with human behavior that are clearly two standard deviations
from the norm. This basically leaves out the unique conscious state of
the individual and the fact that many people are clearly affected by problems
that can't be reduced to a psychopathological model. Human sexual
behavior and all of the behaviors it is associated with are excellent examples
at both an individual and cultural level. Those authors who have taken
on this task; most notably the late Ethel Person, MD have described a continuum of male
sexual fantasy and behavior from the perspective of psychoanalytic theory and
treatment of associated problems. One
of the more interesting considerations to me is the omission of practically all considerations
of fantasy and daydreaming in the DSM as if these important functions have no explanation
and are not as grounded in prefrontal cortex as the working memory is. Do we know the basic differences in the
sexual consciousness of men and women?
Not from anything that I can find.
These considerations are as important for culture as they are for
psychiatry and psychiatric research. The
current cultural attitude seems to be that we need a mechanical understanding of
sex. It is the mechanical approach that
is presented as sex education in school.
Here are the parts, here is how they work, here is how you get pregnant,
and here is how you get diseases. No
relevant discussion about associated emotions, human attachment, desire, or
love. No appreciation of scientific
differences in the sexes. No discussion
about how the really big organ in the head is orchestrating everything. Figuring out how to address these important
issues is a lot more complicated than voting on the most attractive present day
penis.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
1. Nuzzo R. Bigger
not always better for penis size. Nature
News April 8, 2013.
2. Mautz BS, Wong
BBM, Peters RA, Jennions MD. Penis size interacts with body
shape and height to influence male attractiveness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1219361110 (2013).
3. Van den
Oever MC, Spijker S, Li KW, Jiménez CR, et al. A Proteomics Approach to Identify Long-Term Molecular Changes in Rat
Medial Prefrontal Cortex Resulting from Sucrose Self-Administration. Journal of Proteome Research 2006 5 (1), 147-154
4. Ethel Spector Person, MD. The Sexual Century. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1999.
4. Ethel Spector Person, MD. The Sexual Century. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1999.
