Annals of sex research

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 5–20 | Cite as

The nature of explanation in sexology and the riddle of triolism

  • Uri Wernik


Triolism is an uncommon sexual variety. Through its examination, the nature of explanation itself in Sexology is clarified and much is learned about sexuality in general. The prevalent explanations based on voyeurism, exhibitionism, latent homosexuality, and the Oedipal complex, are rejected as pseudo-scientific "one factor" theories, nonhumanistic, and anti-therapeutic. Content analysis was performed on letters written by triolists. This analysis supplied information on the couples involved, the nature and development of their sexual practices, and the effects on the couples' relationship. Based on this analysis, an alternative explanatory model is presented. It consists of an interplay of three groups of factors: Sexuality in the framework of marriage, the role of visuality in human sexuality, and coping with inhibitions in sexual functioning. Thus, triolism can be conceived as a result of a problem solving process in which a person finds a creative combined solution to these and other concerns.


Sexual Practice Content Analysis Sexual Functioning Explanatory Model Human Sexuality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allport, G.W. (1958).The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bieber, I. et al. (1962).Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study of male homosexuals. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Ellis, H. (1936).Studies in the psychology of sex. (Vol. II.) New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  4. Frank, J.D. (1973).Persuasion and healing. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Haley, J. (1963).Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Statton.Google Scholar
  6. Holsti, O.R. (1969).Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Massachussetts: Addison-Wesley Publication Co.Google Scholar
  7. Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E. (1948).Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  8. Krafft-Ebing, R. von. (1931).Psychopathia sexualis. trans. F.J. Rebman. Chicago: Login Bros.Google Scholar
  9. McDonald, G.W. (1980). Family power.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 841–54.Google Scholar
  10. Mann, T. (1968).Doctor Faustus. Trans. H.T. Lower-Porter. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  11. Masters, W.H. & Johnson, V.E. (1970).Human sexual inadequacy. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.Google Scholar
  12. McCary, J.L. (1978).Human sexuality. 3rd Ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.Google Scholar
  13. Money, J. (1984). Testimony before a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, Washington, D.C., October, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. Nagel, E. (1961).The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanations. New York: Hartcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
  15. Singer, I. (1974).The goals of human sexuality. New York: Shocken Books.Google Scholar
  16. Torey E.F. (1973).The mind game, witchdoctors, and psychiatrists. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  17. Tripp, C.A. (1975).The homosexual matrix. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
  18. Zilbergeld, B. (1978).Male sexuality. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Juniper Press 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uri Wernik
    • 1
  1. 1.Misgav Ladach HospitalJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations