to explain many behaviours. There needed to be a subjective dimension to drives — a dimension involving a person’s perceived needs and desires. Indeed, we know that subjective perceptions and their associated desires can overpower physiological needs. And so some earlier theorists cast a wider net to the question of what motivates us to do things, such as Murray in his ‘universal needs’, Miller in his ‘conditioned motives’; and others who proposed various ‘mini-theories’ of motivation.46 Each of these contributions offered particular insights into the complex interaction of drives that energise behaviour.
Nevertheless, because of the problems inherent in measuring and predicting drives, motives, incentives and intentions, and because of the complexities such notions added to experimental design, they lost their appeal as explanatory mechanisms in evidence-based psychological theory and research in subsequent decades. But this did not mean the notions themselves were invalid or outdated; from a clinical perspective, they remained central constructs.47 We return to these ideas, but make distinction between our use of the term ‘drive’ and that used in traditional drive theory. Our focus is on the subjective aspect of drives — whether the drive source be subjective or physiological. To gain insight into the interplay of the subjective and physiological components of prevailing drives, let us leave the subject of sex for a moment and consider an equally fundamental activity: eating.
We all understand the need to eat. This need has an obvious primary physiological function: that is, to provide nutrition for the body. Normally, when the physiological need arises, the body generates hormones creating a desire to ingest food — that is, it creates hunger signals.48 While the source of these signals may be biological, they are apprehended by the subjective self, creating a felt urge — a ‘drive’ to eat. Yet the need to eat does not discriminate what food is good for the health of the body, even though a primary function is to keep it healthy. Furthermore, competing motives affecting eating behaviour may have little to do with this physiological need and primary function. Take, for example, the person suffering an eating disorder,49 or choosing to fast until they get political demands met: here the physiological ‘need to eat’ is suppressed. If we were to define a drive by its goal, we would find many different goals for eating (or not eating): I might eat because it is dinnertime, because I am bored, because I feel sad, because the food looks/smells good (for pleasure), to celebrate, to be nurtured emotionally, to be social, to make a political statement and so on. The goal becomes the defining element of the subjective drive, a drive that can have more to do with the state of the inner self or with social demands than with bodily needs.
And so we see that different subjective drives can relate to the same behaviour: in this case, whether or not to eat. A drive can be linked to a physiological need (eating to satisfy felt hunger that signals physical needs), or to other subjective desires and goals (such as eating in order to respect the hospitality of the host). ‘The reason for’ may relate to a conscious awareness or decision (a decision to lose weight), but it might also be an unconscious process (to meet emotional needs).50 Furthermore, the goal of the drive, though expressed in certain behaviours, exists independent of those behaviours. That is, I can desire something long before that desire finds consummation in my behaviour, and the behaviour in which it finds consummation (if indeed, I choose to consummate that drive) can vary: I can feel hungry for some time before I decide to eat; and where, how, and what I eat can vary depending on other coexisting and competing drives, as well as on prevailing environmental and social circumstances.
Various drives can act simultaneously in relation to eating behaviour. I can eat both because I am hungry and I wish to please my dinner host. Different functions are being met at the same time. But co-occurring drives may also be in conflict: I may want to eat because I am hungry, yet not want to eat because I have been putting on too much weight. Some drives may be ego-dystonic: that is, I experience an urge I would rather not have (I continue to feel hungry although I’ve already eaten too much). And so I may need to manage drives that create conflict, as conflict creates psychological distress. The management of drives involves optimising the fit between drives, their possible expression, and my values and beliefs, so that internal and external conflict is minimised. In such a process, a particular drive may be rationalised by changing or amending a value or belief, or a particular drive may be inhibited or embraced behaviourally to match an underlying value or belief. Situations may be avoided altogether to limit the activation of unwanted drives. Furthermore, the meanings attributed to a drive can be coloured to match the underlying values and beliefs.
There are other complications. For example, eating might satiate a physiological drive. However, when eating is motivated by loneliness, no satiation occurs. In this case, eating may help someone feel better momentarily, but it is unrelated to bodily needs, and it won’t fulfil the need for company. In other words, the outcome of the activity doesn’t meet the goal of the drive that set it in motion. The circumstances of eating can also change the extent to which related subjective drives are met. I can eat a burger alone, but the experience will be different when I eat a burger prepared for me by a friend. When this happens, I don’t only eat a burger; I am also the recipient of my friend’s love and intent to bless me. I feel special and significant by the intent and energy and sacrifice of my friend. The event becomes not only an act of eating; it now carries layered meanings in regard to relationship. Eating alone accentuates loneliness: eating with another might mean acceptance and recognition by another person. Without these other meaning layers, I might eat simply to combat my loneliness, which can result in overeating — even though my body has had enough, my loneliness remains, and so I keep eating. Alternatively, I might lose interest in eating altogether where other critical needs are not being met.
And so we see that eating has a primary physiological function, but also has psychological and social functions. Moreover, the motives relating to eating may be mixed and vary greatly and independently of its physiological function; and the circumstances of eating further affects what drives are met. This is also true for functions and drives relating to sexual behaviours. While I might argue that sexual relating has the physiological function of procreation, and the psychological and social function of belonging, the drives relating to sexual activity and the goals they represent can vary considerably and independently of these functions. Furthermore, like eating, the need for sexual expression does not discriminate what sexual behaviour is good for the health of a sexual relationship. In this respect, the term ‘sexual drive’ is similar to the term ‘eating drive’, in that it gives no information about the great variation of possible drive goals except the implied biological imperative, nor does it identify what constitutes a ‘healthy’ or ‘functional’ expression of such drives. There are drives that shape behaviour that have little to do with the primary functions of that behaviour. For example, eating or sexual behaviour in order to ‘prove a point’ may have some fleeting social or psychological value, but it does not serve any enduring purpose. Similarly, eating junk food alone or masturbating to pornography may provide some fleeting pleasure, but again, such behaviour does not serve a functional personal or wider social goal.
And so ‘sexual drive’ is best thought of as a complex profile of any number of drives. It is coloured by hormones, mood, situation, personal history, and personal and societal expectations and values which relate to both primary or secondary functions of sexual behaviour. The relative strength of each drive can vary, affecting a person’s overall drive profile from one circumstance to the next, and so affecting the person’s ultimate decisions and behaviour. There will naturally be debate as to what might be considered ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ functions of behaviour: is this relative to a person’s drive profile (reflecting the most powerful prevailing drives), to sociocultural values and expectations, or to biological imperatives? Each no doubt plays a role, and it is up to the reader to decide whether the argument for what serves as primary functions in sexual behaviour is convincing, and whether the various expressions of such drives might be seen as ‘healthy’ or ‘functional’.
The notion that sexual behaviour involves both multiple drives51 and multiple functions has important implications. It is the particular mix of drives that predict whether the resulting sexual behaviours are likely to
