You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In a previous study (1953) I endeavoured to test the validity of the thesis that loss of consciousness is a constant, invariable accompaniment of normal orgasm. My own observations, and those of numerous colleagues of broad experience whom I discussed the matter with, lent no support to this thesis and I was led to suggest that, when it did occur, it was indicative of some disturbance in functioning.
I return to the problem now because there is still a lack of agreement on this issue, despite the fact that many analysts, over many years, have received detailed reports about the sexual experiences of their patients.
I return to the problem, further, because of its relevance in establishing what constitutes healthy functioning. For, just as the recently much-publicized pronouncements of certain investigators to the effect that the sexually uninhibited female is capable of, and will not be content with less than, multiple orgasm have caused concern in individuals previously satisfied by a single, simultaneous climax, followed by peaceful, refreshing sleep, so, since the insistence on loss of consciousness as the norm, one encounters individuals subject to feelings of inadequacy if this is not a characteristic of their own sexual functioning. As a corollary, with the criteria of normalcy in this indeterminate state, analysts may similarly have doubts whether an analysis has been fully effective if orgastic loss of consciousness has not been achieved by the patient.
A further reason for pursuing the subject is its bearing on psychoanalytic methodology, an issue very much in the foreground at the present time. Empirical data form the basis on which explanatory theories are constructed and tested. It is generally agreed, in all branches of science, that in the formation of theories the closer the theory to observational data, the less possibility of error, whereas the greater the distance between high-level theory and empirical data, the greater the risk of speculative p