SPECS Panther — Sexual Pleasure is a Human Right: Looking Beyond Scientific Sexual Models

Early scientific models that describe how the body functions and responds to different sensations during sex, such as Masters and Johnson’s sexual response cycle and Helen Singer Kaplan’s triphasic model, viewed sex as a linear, sequential experience that began with excitement and desire and culminated in orgasm. These models deserve some credit, as they established language and theory about how the body reacts during different elements of a sexual experience. They, however, also set narrow expectations for what sex looks like and, by extension, who is considered “sexually functional.” In reality, these models excluded the experiences of many people with physical, emotional, and cognitive functional differences. At SPECS, we believe it is necessary to reanalyze these models through an inclusive lens.

Human sexuality is more complex than body-focused models may make it seem; it also encompasses context, emotion, stress, communication, and countless other variables. According to the Dual Control Model of Sexual Response, developed by former Kinsey Institute director Dr. John Bancroft and Dr. Erick Janssen in the late 1990s, the brain searches for sexually relevant stimuli during a sexual experience. Positive stimuli, such as the comfort of a partner’s bed, words of affirmation, and open communication, can accelerate sexual arousal. On the other hand, negative stimuli, such as stress, unwanted pain, or a lack of trust, can apply the brakes to arousal and, therefore, decrease pleasure. 

Arousal and pleasure are fluid experiences that depend on the situation and inform human sexual functioning. What may feel comforting and arousing one day or within one context may feel dysphoric and uncomfortable another day or within a different context. Thinking about arousal as a shifting emotion is especially crucial when considering the various ways different bodies interact with sex. 

Within society, normative ideas about how sex “should look” can conflict with the experiences and desires of individuals. Sex is different for everyone, and expecting bodies to perform according to specific models of arousal limits our perceptions of “sex”. Such expectations limit arousal and pleasure for those who either do not or cannot experience aspects of sex, like orgasm. Orgasm can be enjoyable, but it is not the focal point of sexual experience for everyone. Many people may find it difficult to reach orgasm, or they simply may not want to. As such, it’s important to care for all aspects of the sexual encounter.

An aspect of pleasure that is often forgotten is erogenous zones, which are places on the body that are particularly sensitive to touch and can induce sexual or nonsexual arousal. Erogenous zones are not limited to the genitals. Common examples include the ears, the stomach, the nape of the neck, and the back of the knee, or any body part that an individual enjoys touching or having touched. It is completely normal to experience pleasure from non-genital physical stimulation. 

In navigating discussions of individual relationships with sex, it’s important to remember that language is deeply personal. Everyone has a different way of describing their identity, body parts, and likes and dislikes, and it can be helpful to talk about the experience itself rather than rely on labels of sex, gender, and ability. For example, the benefits of barrier methods (such as external condoms, internal condoms, and dental dams) extend beyond STI and pregnancy prevention — they can also be helpful if the feeling of bodily fluids is overwhelming for anyone who experiences sensory overload. Some other sensory-focused tools that might enhance pleasure are loud music, impact toys like paddles or feathers, wax play, blindfolds, and/or flavored drinks. Communication is key in establishing what feels comfortable for both partners to maximize enjoyment.

Communication styles vary, which means that consent can look different for everyone. So, what does consent look like when we might not communicate in the same way? In SPECS, we frequently use the Planned Parenthood FRIES model (freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic, and specific) to define consent. Although this model is an important framework, it also has some gray areas; what is considered enthusiastic, for example, may vary by individual. With that in mind, we encourage the use of tools, such as yes/no/maybe questionnaires, to set boundaries with your partner, as well as having conversations about how both partners communicate in and outside the bedroom. This could look like establishing a public hand signal that tells one partner that the other is feeling aroused, or allowing time for one partner to collect and write down their thoughts during a discussion — whatever seems like it could feel supportive to one or both partners is worth a try.

Informed by early ideas about sex as a predictable, normative experience that climaxes in orgasm, we often limit access to pleasure for those who do not want to or cannot experience sex in such a constrictive way. Everyone differs in preference and ability, and sex is a highly individual and personal process. At SPECS, we believe it’s important to embrace the spectrum of these various experiences.