Lust does not
appear in Index Medicus or on Medline. We in the medical profession pretend that the
most atavistic and implacable of all forces does not exist, though our colleagues in the
clergy consider it the deadliest of all the deadly sins.(1) What, then, is lust? Like
any good Irishman, shuddering with repressed Catholic guilt and Victorian prudery, I
interpret lust as unfettered sexual desire, and not as some wishy-washy Van Goghian lust for
life in general; as Jenny Diver screeched triumphantly in Brecht's The Threepenny
Opera, "Sexual obsession hath him in thrall." In truth, our primal drives offer us
little choice; we must see our descendants thrive and our genes become immortal. But Mother
Nature has been capriciously kind and has given us this irresistible imperative with a
twinkle in her eye. Procreating is fun, great fun, though archaeologists now say that for
the past few million years humans have consciously separated sex from reproduction;
fortunately sex, even without procreation, is still great fun. It may be an empty
experience, but to paraphrase Woody Allen, as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.
A snake in the garden
Lust drives us to create, to achieve, to make ourselves as
attractive as possible; whether our dick substitute is a big shiny car or the tenderest love
poem or the most outr|fe art nouveau is simply a matter of taste-we are combing our peacock
plumage with different strokes. But there is a snake in our garden of Eden, the serpent of
sociocultural patterns which trammel this rich creative force into the bottlenecks of
monogamy and sterility. Imagine driving down the motorway in a Porsche and encountering a 30
mph zone; how do you restrain the six tons of throbbing horsepower between your legs? What
congealing effect will it have on your spirit?
This is in regrettable contrast with the
happy sexuality of other mammals, where sex is governed only by the availability of the
female. The unfortunate female human who engages in sex without emotional involvement has
been shown to feel vulnerable and this emotional vulnerability increases with the number of
partners.(2) But could it be our society and its legacy of sexual limitation and
equivocal morality which is the real cause of this vulnerability? Many other cultures
display this unfair, dimorphic attitude. In Mangaia, in Polynesia, a boy who has had many
women is admiringly described as being like a bull; his female counterpart dismissed as a
pig.(3) Women, I am strangely relieved to say, can be just as superficial, and are
more likely to consider sex with a man who has high socioeconomic status (SES) and
consequently greater earning potential,(4) no matter if he is as unappealing as a
hernia with a goatee.
Turning tide
Perhaps the tide is turning; women are now more
often initiating sexual contact,(5) and as they wield more social and political power,
their sexual attitudes may also become more aggressive. And then we men can start lusting
after them for their SES as well as their SEX.
But even unsatisfied lust may have its
good points. When Yeats, only 23, fell in unrequited love with Maud Gonne, his loss inspired
the greatest body of love poetry in the English language; the anguish, the ruin, the grief,
the lurching between melancholy and despair, "It had become a glimmering girl/With
apple-blossom in her hair/Who called me by my name and ran/And faded in the brightening
air." Would a few good hard shags right at the start of their relationship have deprived us
of these sublime and unforgettable verses? As Balzac said (afterwards), "There goes another
great novel."
Crossmaglen,
County Armagh BT35 9HD
Liam Farrell,
general practitioner
References:
1 Capps D.The deadly sins and saving virtues: how
they are viewed by clergy. Pastoral Psychology 1992;40:209-33.
2 Townsend
J M. Sex without emotional involvement. An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences.
Arch Sex Behav 1995; 24:173-207.
3 Marshall D. Sexual behaviour on
Mangaia; human sexual behaviour. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
4 Townsend JM.
Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality
and partner selection. Arch Sex Behav 1990;19:149-63.
5 Anderson PB.
Reports of female initiation of sexual contact: male and female differences. Arch Sex
Behav 1993;22:335-43.
