Sexual Scripting - Part 2

Biological essentialism and social constructionism are two common approaches to exploring the concept of sexuality and desire (Giles, 2003). According to the essentialist view, I experience desire because I am biologically programmed to do so and is a consequence of our evolutionary history as humans. There is no doubt that if the various neurochemicals and synapses in my brain malfunction, and if my bodily functions cease to operate, my sexual desire and capacity to engage in sexual activity will cease. But the release of sex hormones that affect erections, ejaculation, and vaginal lubrication is not necessary for the occurrence of sexual desire, although they may have a hand in my response to my sexual desire.

The other approach is the claim that sexual desire and sexual expression are socially constructed, that is sexual desire exists only because the culture in which it appears has been constructed or, in the view of Simon & Gagnon (1984), individuals create sexual scripts. Levine (1987) argues that sexual desire is generated and influenced by both internal and external events. According to his model, sexual desire is a personal, subjective experience that is defined as "the psychobiologic energy” (p. 36), that precedes and accompanies arousal and which may or may not produce sexual behaviour. I would agree with Levine and conclude that both approaches are necessary, and as such are mutually interdependent. The biological aspects of sexuality are required to enjoy sexual encounters, and the social constructionist approach provides the schemas and the processes that are necessary to make meaning of the encounters. Giles (2003), on the other hand, has refuted both approaches and contends that our sexual desires are a result of existential needs not a construction of culture, but rather a ‘‘universal feature of the human condition’’ (p. 181).

Notwithstanding Giles’ need to cast sexual desire in phenomenological terms, sexuality with its implicit meanings and associated behaviours is enacted by persons in real time in the theatre of social and relational interactions. Hence, my theoretical approach is informed by social constructionists and queer theory assertions that sexuality is socially and culturally produced in complicated and pluralist ways (Duggan, 1992; Plummer, 1981; Weeks, 1986).

In my discussion of sexuality, I will be looking firstly at sexual behaviours because it is what we do that is most immediate and material that arises out of prior erotic needs, desires and attractions. I then turn to the theory of sexual scripting, with discussions on the cultural scenarios of scripts, followed by the intrapsychic dimension, the notion of the self and objectification, and move onto interpersonal scripts and the “not so normal” scripts. I then discuss some concluding comments.

Giles, J. (2003). The nature of sexual desire. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.