Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Page 1 of 4
Love-Object Set Against Sex-Object: Appraising Two
Associated Objects
Saeed Shoja Shafti*
Department of Psychiatry, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Razi Psychiatric Hospital, Iran
Introduction
One of the major interesting questions in the realm of emotive
behavior and psychodynamic analyses involves assessment of
to object’s sensual or loving aspects [1,2]. During counselling or
psychotherapeutic sessions, there are a lot of patients that introduce
their partner as their absolute sweetheart and companion, while
criticize them, as well, regarding their incompetence with respect to
Many of them may describe their partner as asexual, hypoactive
or dishonest, while their own displeasure or jealousness may
have root in a mismatch between sensual yearnings and spiritual
longings.
Now a question may arise that whether sex-object is equal to
love-object, or they are unalike things with different intentions
and tasks, which have been nominated by way of evolution thru
history. If so, then how therapist or counselor can help their clients
to gain insight regarding their mate and correct or modify their
expectations according to their genuine desires and partner’s
competencies. Essentially, is such a separation possible? Is it
sensible to reduce, conceptually, companion’s position from an
adoring lover to merely an actor of sexual role? For enlightenment
of query, some review of associated concepts seems valuable.
Background
In general, the basic assumption of contemporary object
relations theories is that all internalizations of relationships with
characteristics under the conditions of peak affect interactions and
low affect interactions [3]. Under conditions of low affect activation,
ISSN: 2644-2957 DOI: 10.33552/OJCAM.2020.04.000587
Online Journal of
Complementary & Alternative Medicine
Review Article Copyright © All rights are reserved by Saeed Shoja Shafti
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License OJCAM.MS.ID.000587.
*Corresponding author: Saeed Shoja Shafti, Professor of Psychiatry, University of
Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Razi Psychiatric Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
Received Date: April 27, 2020
Published Date: June 16, 2020
Summery
During counselling or psychotherapeutic sessions, there are a lot of persons that introduce their partner as their absolute sweetheart and
desires. Many of them may describe their partner as asexual, hypoactive or dishonest, while their own displeasure or jealousness may have root in a
mismatch between sensual yearnings and spiritual longings.
Now a question may arise that whether sex-object is equal to love-object, or they are unalike things with different intentions and tasks.
Developmentally, while the sex-object may or may not be at the same time a love-object, the love-object can not be anything except than an ultimate
item derived from sex-drive, though in a more sublimated shape. If we see sex-object and love-object as unalike items with diverse goal lines, such
which possibly will guide their expectations towards more realistic objectives and less bewilderment as regards their constant displeasures.
Keywords: Object; Sex-object; Love-object; Sexuality
Online Journal of Complementary & Alternative Medicine Volume 4-Issue 3
Citation: Saeed Shoja Shafti. Love-Object Set Against Sex-Object: Appraising Two Associated Objects. On J Complement & Alt Med.
4(3): 2020. OJCAM.MS.ID.000587. DOI: 10.33552/OJCAM.2020.04.000587.
Page 2 of 2
reality-oriented, perception-controlled cognitive learning
affective, cognitive, and motor reactivity of the infant), leading to
functions, the position of the self in space and time, and the
permanent characteristics of others. As these perceptions are
integrated and become more complex, interactions with others are
cognitively registered and evaluated, and working models of them
are established. Inborn capacities to differentiate self from non-self,
and the capacity for cross-modal transfer of sensorial experience,
play an important part in the construction of the model of self and
the surrounding world [4]. The capacity for mutually satisfying
relationships has been traditionally attributed to the ego, although
self-other relationships are more properly a function of the whole
person, the self, of which the ego is a functional component [5].
- for normal psychological development and a variety of
psychopathological states - was fully appreciated relatively late in
the development of classical psychoanalysis [6]. The evolution in
the child’s capacity for relationships with others, progressing from
relationships within the family and then to relationships within the
larger community, is related to this capacity [6]. Development of
object relationships may be disturbed by retarded development,
regression, or conceivably by inherent genetic defects or limitations
in the capacity to develop object relationships, or impairments and
The earliest manifestations of infantile sexuality arose in
relation to bodily functions that had been regarded as basically
nonsexual, such as ‘feeding and development of bowel and bladder
control’. But Freud saw that these functions involved degrees of
sensual pleasure which he interpreted as forms of psychosexual
stimulation, and divided them into a succession of developmental
phases, each of which was thought to build on the completion of
the preceding phases namely the oral, anal, and phallic phases.
Urethral, latency, and genital phases were added, later, to complete
the picture [8].
For each of the stages of psychosexual development, Freud
the phases of libido development, dividing the oral period into
a sucking and biting phase, and the anal phase into a defective-
expulsive (anal sadistic) and a mastering-retaining (anal erotic)
phase. Finally, he hypothesized that the phallic period consisted of
an earlier phase of pre-genital love, which was designated as the
true phallic phase and a later, more mature, genital phase [8]. From
the very beginning of the child’s development, Freud regarded the
sexual instinct as “anaclitic,” in the sense that the child’s attachment
physiological dependence on the object [9].
This view of the child’s earliest attachment would seem
consistent with Freud’s understanding of infantile libido based on his
discovery that sexual fantasies of even adult patients were typically
postulated that the choice of a love object in adult life and the love
relationship itself were dependent on an important degree on the
nature and quality of the child’s object relationships during the
earliest years of life [9]. On the other hand, while psychoanalysts
generally theorize that paraphilia represent a regression to or a
in a repetitive pattern of sexual behavior that is not mature in its
application and expression [10], behaviorists suggest that the
paraphilia begins via a process of conditioning and nonsexual
objects can become sexually arousing if they are frequently and
repeatedly associated with a pleasurable sexual activity. Anyhow,
development of a paraphilia is not usually a matter of conditioning
alone; there must usually be some predisposing factor, such as
self-esteem [11].
Current theories, largely resulting from direct empirical
and experimental observations of children in child analyses
and developmental studies rather than merely relying on the
reconstruction of childhood experiences based on the data from
with the further supposition of programmatic progression of
libidinal stages, progressing through the sequence of stages from
oral to genital in prescribed order, and place greater emphasis on
including maturational factors, temperamental dispositions, object
relations involvements and vicissitudes, affective development,
cognitive development, language acquisition, and so on [12]. There
is accordingly a greater inclination to view libidinal stages as
more loosely organized, intermingled, and not necessarily rigidly
sequential [13].
Discussion
In the realm of sexual behavior, sex-object is an entity (animate
or inanimate, total or in part) that initiates the psychosexual
of psychosexual excitement, whether in a heterosexual, homosexual
or bisexual person or essentially in a person with paraphilia.
Typically, and disregard to its known or unknown roots, it has a
everyone. One of its peculiar characteristics is the obsessed gravity
with which it inspires or preoccupies person’s thoughts, usually
Citation: Saeed Shoja Shafti. Love-Object Set Against Sex-Object: Appraising Two Associated Objects. On J Complement & Alt Med.
4(3): 2020. OJCAM.MS.ID.000587. DOI: 10.33552/OJCAM.2020.04.000587.
Online Journal of Complementary & Alternative Medicine Volume 4-Issue 3
Page 3 of 4
unintentionally, in reality or imaginarily. Therefore, it has a quality
similar to an overvalued idea, not obsessive idea, because it is
alloplastic and ego-syntonic and so satisfactory, not ego-dystonic
and stressful. Without that and in the realm of sexual activities,
general, it acts as a link between sensual orientation and erotic
actions, which can be displaced or substituted according to the
psychosexual developmental stages.
On the other hand, love-object is usually acknowledged by
intellectuals and poets in the ground of romance, though many
times it may be recognized by people as equal to sex, eroticism or
sexual love. It usually pertains to animate people, whether male or
female objects, and can be reinforced by sexual performance. It is
the main subject of many of novelists or lyricists, who commonly
describe love as sublimation of spirits or enhancement of human
feelings, a process that starts with the appearance of love-object
during social and interpersonal relationships. As like as sex-object,
it is also usually an involuntary process and substitutable and may
change according to the surroundings and happenings, though
one, it can be mingled with ambivalence or turned more easily into
its opposite pole (animosity or hatred), while such a thing is not
imaginable with respect to the sex-object, which may stay alive even
after changeover (like persistence of masturbation in a married
person). Also, love-object can be survived during an apparently
asexual route, like a passionate rapport between unconsummated
couples, or in spite of presence of sexual dysfunctions (hypoactive
sexual desire disorder, sexual aversion disorder, orgasmic disorder,
erectile disorder, vaginismus, dyspareunia, etc.). So, while the
sex-object is, in general, free from social interactions or external
or process, the love-object is not free from societal communications
and surroundings forces (Table 1).
Table 1: Major dierences between sex-object and love-object.
Characteristics Sex-object Love-object
Genesis Developmentally Environmentally
Construction Primitive Sublimated
Seeking Satisfaction
Perseverance Momentary Continuing
Replacement (after puberty) Less likely More likely
Mingling with other feelings, like ambivalence Less likely More likely
Adverse emotive outcomes upon dismay Less likely More likely
Level of anticipations Restricted Boundless
In addition, while the sex-object is directly and essentially
concluded to sensual accomplishments. Developmentally, while
the sex-object may or may not be at the same time a love-object
(love object can be in the continuation of sex-object), the love-ob-
ject can not be anything except than an ultimate item derived
from sex-object, though in a more sublimated, less sexualized, and
extra spiritualized shape. Persons with paraphilia, like pedophilia,
exhibitionism, voyeurism, frotteurism, transvestic fetishism, sexual
masochism, sexual sadism, fetishism, and zoophilia, are typically
love towards their favored objects, and after attainment of desired
sensual pleasure and orgasm leave them behind easily. Persons
with alexithymia or obsessive-compulsive personality traits, as
well, usually do not feel love towards others, at least straightfor-
wardly and knowingly (consciously).
But then again, persons who fall in love, habitually, asks for
separation effortlessly. Hence, in keeping with the aforesaid facts we
may conclude that sex-object and love-object are two unalike items
with unalike goal lines. Acknowledgement of this fact by counselor
or analyst may help clients, too, to discern these two from each other.
For sure, such a distinction may assist patients toward achievement
of better insight [14,15] with respect to their judgments, object-
their expectations towards more realistic objectives and less
bewilderment with respect to their constant displeasures. In this
peculiar desires; are they in search of more sexy pleasures or
higher sophisticated psychic happiness? Secondly, are their wishes
comparable (analogous) to their partner’s cravings? If not, after
probing by counselor or psychotherapist, so may they adjust their
yearnings accordingly? Thirdly, disregard to plausible gender-
thorough assimilation of these two possible? Theoretically and
evolutionarily it seems conceivable because psychoanalytically
and chronologically a direct and continual association between
sex-object and love-object is supposable and both of them are end
product of sexual instinct; but practically and ultimately it is not so
feasible, because historically the sociocultural evolution of human
being has been faster or broader than obvious biological evolution
Online Journal of Complementary & Alternative Medicine Volume 4-Issue 3
Citation: Saeed Shoja Shafti. Love-Object Set Against Sex-Object: Appraising Two Associated Objects. On J Complement & Alt Med.
4(3): 2020. OJCAM.MS.ID.000587. DOI: 10.33552/OJCAM.2020.04.000587.
Page 4 of 4
process, not simply an organic act, so it is not independent from
psychosocial variables [18,19]. Unfortunately, an individual who
may not appreciate this point and may not separate different objects
from each other may possibly be condemned to feel persistent
cheerlessness and in need of recurrent revision concerning the
obtainable objects. Auspiciously, the said understanding, disrespect
realm of conscious or semi-conscious analysis [20,21].
Acknowledgements
None.
References
1.
Indispensible Outcome of Evading Freud and Orthodox Psychoanalysis.
Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology Research 3(1): 110-117.
2. Shoja Shafti S (2019) Traditionalism and Analytical Thinking: A Potential
Incompatibility in Psychoanalysis. Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology
Research 3(1): 130-134.
3. Person ES, Cooper AM Gabbard GO (2005) Textbook of psychoanalysis.
American Psychiatric Publishing Washington, USA.
4.
5. (1999) Attachment research and psychoanalysis. 1. Theoretical
considerations. 2. Clinical implications. In: Diamond D, Blatt SJ (eds.),
Psychoanal Inquiry 19: 4.
6.
on theory and clinical experience. In: Diamond D, Blatt SJ, Lichtenberg J
(eds.), Psychoanalytic Inquiry 23: 1.
7. Greenberg JR, Mitchell SA (1983) Object Relations in Psychoanalytic
Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.
8. Tyson P, Tyson RL (1990) Psychoanalytic Theories of Development. Yale
University Press, New Haven, USA.
9. Meissner WW (2003) The Ethical Dimension of Psychoanalysis: A
Dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany, USA.
10.
patients and sexual offenders. Curr Opin Psychiatry 20(6): 609-613.
11.
and implications for pharmacological treatment. Isr J Psychiatry Relat
Sci 49 (4): 255-261.
12. Shapiro T, Emde RN (1993) Research in psychoanalysis: Process,
development, outcome. J Amer Psychoan Assn 41(Suppl): 1-424.
13. Richards AD, Tyson P (2000) Psychoanalysis, development and the life
cycle. J Amer Psychoan Assn 48 (4): 1045-1618.
14. Shoja Shafti S (2018) Self-understanding: An analytic end-result of self-
absorption. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education 10
(1): 61-72.
15. Shoja Shafti S (2019) Classical Approach as an Operative Outlet to
Clinical Psychoanalysis in Evolving Societies. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis and Education 11(1): 5-18.
16. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.
17. Shoja Shafti S (2018) Review of Cultural-Historical Psychology. Qoqnoos
Publishing Company, Tehran.
18. Shoja Shafti S (2003) An Introduction to Sociobiology (Neo-Darwinism).
Qoqnoos Publishing Company, Tehran.
19. Shoja Shafti S (2016) An Introduction to Clinical Sociobiology:
Evolutionary Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. Qoqnoos
Publishing Company, Tehran.
20. Shoja Shafti S (2016) Practicing psychoanalysis and psychodynamic
psychotherapies in developing societies. American Journal of
Psychotherapy 70: 329-342.
21. Shoja Shafti S (2018) Psychoanalytic Analysis of Psychopathology. Jami
Publishing Company, Tehran.