Advertisement

Subjectifying Construction: Situating Desire, Pleasure and Power in Heterosexual Relationships

  • Pankhuri Chandra
  • Anuradha Sharma
Research in Progress
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

This study attempts to understand the gender positions taken up by men and women with regard to desire, pleasure, and power in heterosexual relationships. This would require an insight into the developing sexual selves of the participants. Using the qualitative technique of discourse analysis, the focus was to cultivate an image of the sexual life of these young people such that one is able to see how the elements in the construction of their sexuality have coalesced resulting in the current positions. It became evident through an analysis of the narratives that women were very much aware of and exposed to the notions of desire and pleasure, and thought about their sexual nature and needs. They had no qualms in admitting and accepting the same. Among the men, it was seen that men were not uni-dimensional, single-minded and self-centred with regard to sex. Intimacy and emotionality were very much part of their sexual repertoire. With regard to the construct of power, it is evident from the narratives that there is a power dynamic at play where sexual experience could become a function of a feeling of superiority in heterosexual relationships. A power dynamic appears to exist between the forces of self and society as well and seems to be skewed in the favour of men. Thus, the focus here has not been to complete the jigsaw but to understand how these pieces have come to be a part of this puzzle, being completely aware that the results would only be an entry point into understanding how these complex structures develop.

Keywords

Subjectivity Gender Sexuality Desire Pleasure Power 

References

  1. Birnbaum, G. (2017). The fragile spell of desire: A functional perspective on changes in sexual desire across relationship development. Personality and Social Psychology Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317715350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chopra, T., & Vatsayana, (2007). Kamasutra. New Delhi: Prakash Books India.Google Scholar
  3. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dieronitou, I. (2014). The ontological and epistemological foundations of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 2(10), 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gavey, N. (1997). Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis. In M. Gergen & S. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender: A reader (pp. 49–64). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Henriques, J., & Hollway, W. (1984). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques (Ed.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  10. Kakar, S. (1989). Intimate relations: Exploring Indian sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kakar, S. (2012). The inner world a psychoanalytic study of childhood and society in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S. (1995). Feminist discourses and women’s heterosexual desire. Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives (pp. 86–142). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2001). The nature of human orgasm: A critical review of major trends. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(6), 823–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murray, S. H., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Sexual desire and relationship duration in young men and women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 38(1), 28–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2011.569637.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Regan, P. C., & Atkins, L. (2006). Sex differences and similarities in frequency and intensity of sexual desire. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(1), 95–101.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.1.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tolman, D. (2005). I. Found(ing) discourses of desire: Unfettering female adolescent sexuality. Feminism and Psychology, 15(1), 5–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353505049696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tolman, D., Spencer, R., Harmon, T., Rosen-Reynoso, M., & Striepe, M. (2004). Getting close, staying cool: Early adolescent boys’ experiences with romantic relationships. In M. Kimmel, N. Way, & J. Chu (Eds.), Adolescent boys: Exploring diverse cultures of boyhood (pp. 235–255). New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity Institute of Psychology and Allied StudiesAmity University, NoidaNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations