One of the men handicapped in sexual performance by strict adherence to fundamental Protestantism developed symptoms of erective inadequacy after three years of marriage. The three marriages averaged seven and one-half years’ duration before the husband and wifes were seen by authority. Two of these units were referred initially for conceptive inadequacy rather than ejaculatory incompetence.

Three men offered dislike, rejection, or open enmity for their wives as sufficient reason for failure to ejaculate intravaginally.

In the first instance

A man married a distant relative whom he found totally objectionable physically. The advantages of the marriage were of monetary and social import.

It probably mattered not whom the man married, as his sexual commitment was of homosexual orientation. He was able to function coitally with his wife from an erective point of view, but after .penetration he was repulsed rather than stimulated by her demanding pelvic thrusting and delighted in denying to her the ejaculatory experience.

After six years of marriage and continuation of his homosexual commitments, he decided that children should be a part of his marriage’s image to the community. But the established pattern of voluntary restraint was so strong that he could not ejaculate for conceptive purposes.

After three years of involuntary ejaculatory constriction and a total of nine years of marriage, the unit was seen in treatment. The presenting complaint was not a request for relief of the ejaculatory incompetence or for treatment of the homosexual commitment, but rather was for the concerns of conceptive inadequacy.

In the second instance

The marriage was of convenience, with no respect, interest, or admiration for the woman involved. Intercourse was initially considered an unpleasant duty by the husband, to be indulged in reluctantly and only when confrontation no longer could be avoided. The husband was so physically repulsed by his wife that, although erections were maintained, he rarely reached sufficient levels of sexual tension to approach ejaculation.

On those few occasions when ejaculation seemed imminent, he would arbitrarily terminate coital connection to deny his wife consummation of the marriage. His great pleasure was to pretend he had ejaculated and then to enjoy her frustration when she ultimately discovered that he had not succumbed to her driving demand to consummate her marriage.

He was consistently involved with other women outside of marriage with, of course, no ejaculatory difficulty. Despite her full knowledge of the degree of her husband’s rejection of her as a person, she still wanted her marriage to survive, and the unit was referred for therapy.

The third couple

Depicting rejection of the wife as an individual resulted from the marriage of a 28 year old man and a 25 year old woman who had been raped as a teenager by 2 Negroes. She had not told him of the episode until their wedding night. Why she chose this particular time to confide in her virginal husband she could not say.

He was overwhelmed by the story. He considered her contaminated, and, although there were a few episodes of coition, he could not ejaculate intravaginally. Their six-year marriage, unconsummated by intravaginal ejaculation, ended in divorce. Eighteen months after the legal separation, the husband was referred by his local physician because he could not ejaculate intravaginally with subsequent sexual partners. His rejection of intravaginal ejaculation had carried over to other women. Of interest is the fact that his former wife joined him as a replacement partner. This unit is reported in the marital statistics.

There have been two examples of male fear of pregnancy among members of couples seeking relief from ejaculatory incompetence:

  1. A 19-year-old boy
    Who had impregnated a girl of whom he was very fond. A criminal abortion was performed under the most brutal of circumstances and massive infection resulted. The girl was ill for many months, almost losing her life.

    Ultimately, she would have nothing to do with the man who had caused her pregnancy and who had insisted upon the abortion that nearly cost her life. Since he had insisted upon the abortion rather than accept marriage as a face-saving mechanism, his levels of guilt knew no bounds.

    Five years later in another community and with another girl, a marriage was established. When attempting consummation, the husband found himself completely unsuccessful in ejaculating intravaginally and continued to be so for the next three years until seen in therapy.

    His was an overwhelming fear of causing pregnancy and of the possibly unfortunate complications thereof. Contraceptive practices offered him no real sense of security. His wife’s mere suggestion of raising a family was sufficient to produce a severe anxiety attack. Since his wife had no knowledge of the historical onset of her husband’s pregnancy phobia, she presumed personal rejection as the primary factor in his ejaculatory incompetence. The marriage was headed for legal separation when husband and wife were seen in therapy.

  2. One man simply did not want children
    His wife, although giving verbal support to his rejection of parenthood, would not practice contraception for religious reasons nor allow her husband to take contraceptive precautions. Consequently, he voluntarily refused himself the pleasure of intravaginal ejaculation in the early years of the marriage. In due course he found no difficulty with control and eventually could not respond with ejaculation to masturbatory practices. Although the marriage existed 11 years before professional aid was sought, and coital connection was generally one to three times a week, this man initially would not and ultimately could not ejaculate intravaginally.
  3. The final example
    Not one of fear of, but of rejection of pregnancy, has a familiar clinical orientation. Inevitably, there has to be the expected clinical picture of a totally dominant mother essentially choosing a wife for her only son.

    The mother had been in full control of the son’s every major decision until his marriage. Following his parents’ legal separation, the son’s father was never in the home. Throughout his teenage years his mother insisted upon total control of his social commitments.

    She chose his school, his college, and his clothes. She also chose his female companions by the simple expedient of being so abhorrent to those she did not approve that they soon sought other company. Time and again she embarrassed her son by her obvious demand for dominance. He grew to hate his mother but lacked the courage to let her know his level of rejection.

    Particularly was he careful not to offend her too deeply, for she controlled a considerable amount of money and he was all too aware of the advantages this could bring.

    Finally, there was a girl, grudgingly acceptable to his mother, that he could tolerate, so at age 27 he became engaged and in short order married the girl whom he knew only as a quiet companion who never objected to anything he wanted to do.

    Presumably, her contrast to his mother was her only redeeming grace in his eyes. His constant fantasy was of revenge upon his mother. Since she had been coyly describing her anticipation of becoming a grandmother, he vowed she would be frustrated in this one area, if no other. There would be no children.

    The thought never occurred to him that his wife might be frustrated, feel rejected, or fail to endorse his plan for revenge upon his mother. However, after marrying him she began to express her own requirements. After two and one-half years of increasing levels of mutual antagonism, the husband and wife was referred to the Foundation for treatment.