Banner
    The Science Of Pleasure: Part II- Your Brain On Sexual Imagery
    By Andrea Kuszewski | August 14th 2010 01:26 AM | 9 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    More Articles
    All Articles
    About Andrea

    Andrea is a Behavior Therapist and Consultant for children on the autism spectrum, residing in the state of FL; her background is in cognitive

    ...

    View Andrea's Profile
    Sexual images trigger chemical reactions in your brain, which in turn compel us to act in specific ways, or be drawn to certain things, or motivated to engage in particular behaviors. It's common nowadays to have consultants whose job it is to find out exactly how your brain interprets images in order to invoke the greatest possible sexual response. Sounds like a fun job, eh? Sex Research Consultant: Totally hot job in 2011.

    The mind is a very complex thing, but when it comes to sex, it's really pretty simple. How simple? This is your brain on sex...

    Invoking feelings of pleasure, sensuality, and sexual arousal can be quite easily done if you understand how the brain interprets and reacts to sexual stimuli. And you ask, who are the main players in this game of sexual priming? Once again, enter dopamine (he is just about everywhere, isn't he?), and say hello to his little friend, oxytocin.

    When we are first exposed (pun intended) to sexually arousing stimuli, certain neurochemical changes take place. Our brain releases dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved in a plethora of functions- pleasure, arousal, desire, and attraction, to name a few. Dopamine also plays a big role in motivation and drive, which is why dopamine-enhancing drugs work well in syndromes like ADD/ADHD, where lack of motivation is an issue. Because of the strong association dopamine has with both arousal/desire and motivation, it is also thought to play a role in addiction.

    So how exactly do dopamine and oxytocin enhance pleasure?

    After our brain releases dopamine, we feel attracted to the object of our attention. We are compelled to draw closer to it, to experience it more fully. If we are stimulated enough to a point of high arousal, like right before or during orgasm, oxytocin is triggered. Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is associated with attachment. When we interface with a person or object, and our brain releases oxytocin, we naturally form an attachment to it. Oxytocin has been found to be a big player in mother-baby bonding, and there have even been very recent studies that show artificial administration of oxytocin makes males more sensitive and helps autistic children form social relationships.

    The dopamine-oxytocin (DO) combo is the reason why after having sex with someone, you suddenly feel more bonded to them emotionally. Dr Helen Fisher, Biological Anthropologist, said, "Don't have sex with anyone you have no intention of falling in love with, because it just might happen."

    The DO Combo can be a pretty strong weapon in the game of attraction- a pure biochemical love-potion, if you will. And the thing is, you don't even have to engage in sexual activity in order to prime these neurotransmitter responses, which is why fantasies are so powerful. You create the sexual images in your mind, and your brain responds neurochemically, even in the absence of tactile stimuli.

    A few weeks ago, I wrote an article titled "Sex Makes You Smarter, Can Virtual Sex Do The Same?" in which I brought up the concept of virtual sex potentially having the same cognition-enhancing neuro benefits as actual sex. The key factor is inducing the same chemical response from the virtual stimuli as you would from the analog. Some people were skeptical. They claimed that there was no way virtual sex could equal real sex, either by sensation or perception.

    Now, I think this resistance is mainly due to the over-intellectualizing and idealizing of sex, rather than just going with the science. As long as there is a stimulus-response cued reaction, your brain could care less if it was induced by a steamy night with a Russian supermodel, or by looking through the Victoria's Secret catalog. Dopamine and oxytocin aren't snobby that way. They just want to come out to play, no matter who or what invites them.

    If you think about it, fantasies and pornography can be just as arousing as a flesh and blood person, maybe even more so. It all boils down to Classical Conditioning. Research has already shown how paired association of a pleasurable stimulus with a neutral stimulus can cue the release of dopamine from the neutral stimulus following training. You can think of past sexual experiences as the "training condition", and the DO combo as the cued response. After you've experienced the pleasure of sex, certain images and conditions that remind your brain of that experience can cue that DO combo response even in the absence of the the stimulus (sex).

    If you are able to deftly prime those neurotransmitters to be released, you can effectively chemically coerce people into just about anything. The mere image of sexual activity or the strong suggestion of it can be enough to cue the response, get that dopamine flowing, and oxytocin comes running in right behind. Is it any wonder why pornography can seem so addictive?

    Even continual, repeated fantasies about the same person or activity can trigger dopamine and oxytocin to a degree that you actually start psychologically and biologically bonding with that person/image/idea. Once that bond is formed, it is more difficult to just let it go. Viola! You are officially hooked.

    Don't get me wrong here, though. Am I saying that once you respond chemically to sexual stimuli that you are "addicted"? No. Sexual addiction is a whole different topic that I will not be addressing here, at least not today. I still question the validity of that as a bonafide disorder, but I digress.

    The point is, all things equal, if you are presented with two things, and one of them induces a sexual response, that is the item or person you will be drawn to. It doesn't matter if it is real, virtual, 2D, 3D, 4D, or all in your mind. All it needs to do is trigger the DO combo, and it is a done deal. Nothing like being a slave to your neurotransmitters, eh?

    Next in Part III.. Anticipation and Extended Gratification

    Comments

    This article confirms my view that sexuality is nothing more than the mechanism, used by the genetic material to be carried in to the next generation.

    Henk van der Luit (not verified) | 08/14/10 | 05:25 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    All it needs to do is trigger the DO combo, and it is a done deal. Nothing like being a slave to your neurotransmitters, eh?
    That's the trick though, isn't it?  It's pretty clear that sex is a pretty sophisticated affair biologically and yet we are still without a good explanation as to why it exists.  We know how many animals reproduce, but even at the single-celled organism level, I've yet to hear a good explanation as to why reproduction is necessary at all.

    Despite the previous comment about genes, it is clear that genes are a fundamental part of transmitting heritable traits, it is meaningless to talk about genetic reproduction without the mechanism of the cell.  Even virus' hijack the cell's mechanisms to accomplish that objective.

    So it seems that while the chemical activities that give rise to sexual arousal are good to know, but they tell us little about why people are pedophiles or why they may have fetishes, or other fantasies.  It's been common knowledge that the "brain is the largest sex organ", so while the chemical processes that govern that are important, they don't tell us much about what actually triggers these chemical events, since it is equally clear that they aren't random.  What is the mechanism that produces an initial attraction but manages to turn it off, if the individual does something we find unattractive? 

    In my view, this is the fundamental difficulty in understanding the brain, is that despite everything that is known about the brain chemistry, we don't really know how it manages to trigger itself to respond appropriately.  Why do we laugh at funny things and cry when we're sad?  Certainly there are anomalies in behavior, but in the general case, it is clear that our brain chemistry is responding to actual situations that somehow generate chemically appropriate responses.  It would also appear that the brain is quite capable of "correcting" itself or "healing" over some psychologically traumatic event.  While this may take some period of time, and certainly doesn't apply to everyone, it does occur.  Similarly I suspect its no coincidence that the brain tends to forget or minimize unpleasant experiences while remembering the pleasant ones (or even embellishing them).

    The old adage "absence makes the heart grow fonder" speaks directly to the notion of being able to fantasize about someone and grow a bond that doesn't reflect the reality of the relationship. 

    In my view, it's unsurprising that the human brain should have such chemical processes, since it must respond and behave to circumstances differently than animals that respond to simpler "heat cycles" or reproductive urges. 

    Just to be clear, I'm not being critical of the article, but rather I'm anticipating the reductionist arguments that are sure to follow that state ... "ah, well it's only this then"...  in my view, it's anything but.

    Gerhard Adam | 08/15/10 | 15:17 PM
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    It's pretty clear that sex is a pretty sophisticated affair biologically and yet we are still without a good explanation as to why it exists.  We know how many animals reproduce, but even at the single-celled organism level, I've yet to hear a good explanation as to why reproduction is necessary at all.
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by this Gerhard? Surely all organisms are constantly aging and eventually die, so reproduction is necessary because it allows them to create younger, fitter versions of themselves to fight the aging process?

    Organisms that don't reproduce simply age, die and then genetically disappear without trace. Surely sex is simply a means of selecting and combining well-adapted genes in a constantly changing environment, because genes that once were beneficial can become obsolete.

    For example, I suffer from haemochromatosis, or iron-overload syndrome. For many centuries in Scotland it was advantageous to carry this gene because the male Scots were constantly fighting batttles with just about everyone in the neighbourhood, but mainly the English, and therefore it was common for them to shed a lot of blood in battles.

    Those with haemochromatosis could shed a large amount of blood that would kill a normal person but then summon up their reserves of iron and recover to fight again. It was probably also pretty useful for women who gave birth to very large families, and shed a lot of blood doing this each year.

    Nowadays having haemochromatosis is not very useful because the iron overload can kill people. I have to give blood every other month otherwise I start to get iron overload which untreated can eventually kill me and which is associated with stiff joints, motor neurone disease and many other quite rare disorders. The only way of knowing if you have haemochromatosis is to get a genetic test done. I once read that 1 in every 3 of the Scots in Glasgow carries this gene but you need both parents to be carriers for it to manifest as full blown haemochromatosis.
    —
    Make love not war
    Helen Barratt | 08/16/10 | 16:27 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    Surely all organisms are constantly aging and eventually die, so reproduction is necessary because it allows them to create younger, fitter versions of themselves to fight the aging process?
    Actually my question is to consider it before there were organisms.

    While we certainly don't know what the chemical processes were that gave rise to life, nor we do know the mechanics of how the first cells formed, the question is this.  Why would such a chemical process "evolve" to reproduce rather than just growing indefinitely?

    After all, reproduction doesn't do the original organism any good except in the abstract sense.  Even the argument about genes propagating into the future is meaningless since the original genes are just as "dead" as they cells they occupy.  Unless someone wants to make the argument of immortality by proxy, the argument sounds contrived and weak.

    So, my question is ... what made those first chemical processes organize in such a way that reproducing worked better than simply growing?  While there may be obvious limits to growth, it seems that a singular organism still has the opportunity to simply consume resources indefinitely without any compelling reason to want to share this with offspring.

    When one considers that the original organisms would have been clones of the original, the question becomes what possible advantage could be construed to an organism by giving rise to its own competitors?  (Bear in the mind, that a world with no process capable of reproducing, then the first that does so, invariably increases its competitors for finite resources). 

    Perhaps reproduction was little more than an accident (much like a crystal breaking off and continuing to grow).  As a result, multiple copies tended to have a greater presence in the environment and could rapidly out-consume the resources of larger single organisms.  Once such a direction occurred, then the only way to compete would be to also produce copies.
    Surely sex is simply a means of selecting and combining well-adapted genes in a constantly changing environment, because genes that once were beneficial can become obsolete.
    There's no guarantee about the quality of genes that will combine, and short of amplification through in-breeding, the detrimental genes never seem to get completely eradicated.
    Gerhard Adam | 08/16/10 | 18:46 PM
    Fred Phillips
    Why then do people become addicted to narcotics etc., if the dopamine faucet can be opened so easily via virtual sex? Arousing images are free or cheap compared to heroin, and don't lead to holes in your arm or (assuming the images are of consenting adults) social ostracism. There must be something else going on here.

    A build-up of dopamine tolerance that demands the substance be generated by more than one mechanism? Seems unlikely - people who have been having sex all their lives don't automatically need to turn to narcotics, and junkies living under bridges probably don't get much sex.
    Fred Phillips | 08/17/10 | 09:03 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    Fred

    I suspect that the dopamine mechanism is a relatively small part which ultimately plays a role in enforcing psychology tendencies.  In other words, if we want to do something and we feel good doing it, then the dopamine becomes reinforcement of our choice which makes it more difficult to break. 

    In a simple sense, it seems like it's similar to smoking.  Despite the addictive qualities, the biggest hurdle to quitting isn't the nicotine, but the underlying psychology feeling that one doesn't really want to quit.  Until that issue is resolved, there is little else that will serve to make someone quit.

    In my view there are far too many psychological factors relating to group identification, self-esteem, etc. that play a much more significant role in determining the direction someone's behavior takes and the chemical pathways simply provide the rationalization for the action (as well as reinforcing it).  Obviously there are chemical consequences that lead to real physical addiction, but the original start is invariably psychological since there's no basis for pleasure to be assumed.
    Gerhard Adam | 08/17/10 | 15:38 PM
    Fred Phillips
    Sounds reasonable, Gerhard. Those would be the “something else that's going on.”
    Fred Phillips | 08/17/10 | 16:50 PM
    Sex is far more complex than simple hormonal reactions. If you have ever been truly in love with someone that is in love with you, the sex is far different and far better than with someone you may like, but do not really love.

    If someone doesn't know the difference, my sympathies. It was quite late in my life before I discovered what had been missing. If I had only met this soul mate decades before. But better now than never.

    James E. Smith (not verified) | 09/13/10 | 18:15 PM
    Aitch
    It's common nowadays to have consultants whose job it is to find out exactly how your brain interprets images in order to invoke the greatest possible sexual response.

    Don't they call them Pornography Judges?  ;-)

    Aitch
    Henry Cox | 09/14/10 | 14:00 PM