Sex therapy as a field can be considered in many ways. It is a therapeutic discipline, usually requiring rather extensive training for proficiency. It is a rapidly growing body of knowledge, techniques, and modalities within the general realm of psychotherapy. It is a speciality within the broad area of dyadic and family therapy, with significant implications for both.
Since sex, dyadic, and much of family therapy center on the treatment of dyads, it is logical that there should be relationships among the three. Theoretically, the resemblances are clear, but in practice the three areas of therapy have only recently begun to move together. The reason is that each arose and developed not only at different times but also in different ways.
Dyadic therapy (usually called couples or marital therapy) was preceded by pastoral counseling and became recognized as a field of therapy in the 1930s (Bowen). Early counselors, in addition to the clergy, were social workers who had to improvise techniques for dealing with the dyadic problems. Later, psychiatrists and psychologists entered the field, with a variety of theoretical and dynamic formulations explaining what they observed. There is no central figure in dyadic therapy that occupies the place dominated by Sigmund Freud in individual therapy. This also applies to family therapy. More recent than dyadic therapy, family therapy arose in the 1950s among psychiatrists, particularly those treating patients with highly disturbed, neurotic family backgrounds, or patients institutionalized for schizophrenia. With the former, progress or insights in the office seemed to dissipate. With the latter, cures in the hospital could be effected, but in most cases once the patients returned home, the schizophrenic symptoms reappeared. To obtain more lasting cures and to help dysfunctional family constellations, the psychiatrist began to try to modify the family environment, and family therapy was born. Ackerman was one of the first to publish in the field; he was followed by many others, including Whitaker, Wynne et al, and Weakland.
Sex therapy can be traced largely to the work of four people. The first was Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey. Though never addressing the relief of sexual dysfunctions, Dr. Kinsey’s dispassionate, scientific inquiry into sexual practices made the entire subject intellectually and socially reputable. Dr. William H. Masters and Mrs. Virginia Johnson initiated sex therapy per se in 1970 with the publication of Human Sexual Inadequacy. Their approach was and remains rather stringently behavioral. In 1974 Dr. Helen S. Kaplan extended the therapy of Masters and Johnson by adding psychodynamic and interpersonal modalities to the behavioral techniques, describing her approach in The New Sex Therapy. This is the approach generally followed by the author in referring to sex therapy. Unlike sex therapy, family and dyadic therapy does not have major nucleal figures. As Hogan states, “The way in which the family system is approached differs markedly from one therapist to another. Some family therapists . . . think primarily in terms of the family structure. . . . Others emphasize the interplay between . . . individual dynamics and the larger family system. Still others emphasize the communication aspects”. Similar words could be written about dyadic therapy.
In considering the relationship between sex therapy and dyadic and family therapy, it might be asked, to which of the many types of dyadic and family therapy is sex therapy related? The answer is, to all of them and to individual therapy as well.
The reasons lie in the centrality of sex (discussed later) and in current trends in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy as a whole may be looked at in two ways, in terms of techniques or schools—psychoanalytic, gestalt, behavioral, Rogerian, existential—and in terms of fields or areas of application—individual, dyadic, family, sex, children, geriatric, drugs. What seems to be happening is that distinctions among schools and distinctions among areas of applications are blurring, as the practice of therapists and the fields in which they practice begin to merge into each other. In the words of Martin, “It is clear that the fields of individual, marital, and family therapy have overlapping boundaries and that distinguishing one from the other is, to some extent, an artificial process”. There are similar amalgams in psychotherapeutic techniques. But a mere union of techniques and/or fields does not necessarily equal a holistic approach, for even with these amalgams it is possible to view the patient partially, to split the patient into sections treatable by one’s specialty. That is, the person practicing individual psychotherapy tends to split the patient from his or her family, but the dyadic or family therapist tends to split the family member from his or her unique intrapsychic problems. Holism insists on the integrity of the patient: the patient is seen as a whole, as part of a dyad or family (or even, as Auerswald says, as part of a neighborhood, community, or country), and as an individual. Holism also implies that the therapist can vary his or her approach depending on the needs of the patient, dyad, or family. “Man is autonomous,” says Bowen, “yet not separated from family and multigenerational past”.
*248/187/5*