An anonymous and old piece of conventional wisdom states: “If your wife is old and your member exhausted, resort to the humble onion.” How convenient it would be if a simple onion could save a blighted bed session. Edibles such as onions are referred to as aphrodisiacs, which are substances that increase sexual desire or potency through ingestion due to physiological and psychogenic effects.

Aphrodisiacs are naturally occurring, which means that substances created in a laboratory, like Viagra, are not considered aphrodisiacs.1 However, to date, there are no scientifically proven aphrodisiacs. While this may seem like a dead end, I have decided to look more closely and research the reasoning behind this determination. Does the scientific rejection mean that aphrodisiacs do not exist, or is there a fault in the research method?

I have found that aphrodisiacs have been culturally created over history and their functioning is largely dependent upon the influence and interconnectedness of the body, mind and environment. Furthermore, aphrodisiacs reveal the mistake of science in treating the body mechanically.

First, it is important to explain the purpose and history of aphrodisiacs. Aphrodisiacs were initially intended to seduce people into producing more offspring and to increase sexual pleasure and stamina.2 The earliest known aphrodisiac recipe was written by the Egyptians in 1700 BC and involved leaves of Christ’s Thorn, thorny acacia, and honey to, “cool the vessel, to stiffen the softness.”3 In Mesopotamia, cuneiform writing was discovered that related to an effective inebriating beverage that was used as an aphrodisiac in rituals.4 Additionally, in ancient China, the use of ginseng wine as an aphrodisiac was written on Oracle Bones.5 Thus, aphrodisiacs are not a newly discovered phenomenon, but rather, one that has existed since the beginning of recorded time.

Laws Defining Aphrodisiacs

The laws regarding aphrodisiacs relate to a substance’s shape, taste, availability, and association, and are embodied by the Doctrine of Signatures, the Law of Similars and the Rule of Rarity. The Doctrine of Signatures follows from the belief that after Adam and Eve were barred from the Garden of Eden, God gave each plant a visible shape that dictated its use and treatment on the body. Thus, plants were labeled aphrodisiacs because they looked like human genitalia, and as such, should be used to “treat” genitalia. Examples of these foods are carrots, mushrooms and vanilla beans.6 Okra and oysters also fit into this category because of their similar consistency to sexual fluids.7

The Law of Similars is more commonly known worldwide and denotes the ingesting of flesh and sexual organs of animals believed to be exceptionally virile.8 By ingesting these substances, it is believed that humans will assimilate the special sexual properties of the animal. For instance, “by swallowing a powered rhinoceros horn, a man is supposed to be able to mount his woman for hours like a bull rhinoceros.”9 Some examples of this are the consumption of dried penises and testicles of deer, tiger, seal and beaver used in Chinese sex tonics as well as the tradition of drying and soaking spotted geckos (which are easy to catch and mate for a full day) in wine.10

Human and animal body fluids have also been seen as aphrodisiacs through their associated flavor, temperature and scent.11 Ingestion of blood from humans and animals has a long history. The Ming Dynasty’s Emperor Shih Tsung (1522-1567) kept approximately 460 young virgins on supply to produce menstrual blood for his aphrodisiac elixir.12 Although the story of Emperor Shih Tsung may seem repulsive to many, one must not assume that these practices are strictly from “foreign cultures” or only present in past generations. For example, blood letting and drinking still occur today in New York’s Vampire Sex Club which hosts events where participants drink each other’s blood.13 Also, one should not forget the use of other bodily secretions such as sexual fluids and excrement as aphrodisiacs. American voodoo practices utilize cooking with human sexual fluids in the attempt to attain a loved one, while the phenomenon of Coprophilia (attraction to feces) is still prevalent in the pornography market.14

Lastly, the Rule of Rarity is simply the endorsement of rare substances with special aphrodisiac properties.15 The rarity of these foods adds mystique, and in some cases, inedible substances such as rubies, sapphires and diamonds were ingested.16 Even vegetables such as potatoes and onions were once considered aphrodisiacs, since they too were rare in some areas.

The Rule of Rarity may have been commonplace in previous ages where humans did not enjoy the benefits of being able to eat just about any substance regardless of the season, yet today humans are able to eat substances from all around the world regardless of the time of the year. Many of the items previously considered aphrodisiacs because of their rarity are still labeled aphrodisiacs. This contradiction begins to pose a problem: if the rules of aphrodisiacs are fluid, does the actual material makeup of the substance cause the aphrodisiac effect or is it a combination of the aphrodisiac, the body, the mind, and the environment?

Aphrodisiacs and the Environment

It has been noted that the significance of eating with others has a history of facilitating procreation. In The Seduction Cookbook, the author, Diane Brown, explains how our ancient ancestors used to gather after the hunt to feast and often engaged in procreation following the event.17 Elizabeth Rice Allgeier in Sexual Interactions refers this type of thinking to sociobiology’s theories about the cause of behavior, the proximate cause and the ultimate cause.18 The proximate cause is, “explanations of behavior that focus on the immediate sources (how a particular behavior came to exist),” while the ultimate cause is, “explanations of behavior that focus on why a particular behavior increased reproductive success during the process of evolution.”19 Brown’s remark would coincide with the ultimate cause argument because it is the assumption that sexual behaviors do exist and are maintained over history because they have served the ultimate cause of reproduction. Indeed, this suggests that, “many of our current sexual activities can be traced back to reproductive behaviors that are believed to have existed in early hunting and gathering groups.”20

The act of eating together also acknowledges similarity and equality as human beings. Furthermore, eating together puts individuals in similar physical and psychological states, which is beneficial to engaging in sexual relations.21 Thus, the idea that eating together is conducive to sexual relations is not only supported by physiological and psychological factors, but has ultimately been proven by history as well.

There is also a cultural history of food being a romantic part of the social structure. For example, in Sri Lanka, when a woman cooks for a man, it means they are in a relationship and she refers to him as, “the one I cook for.”22 After Hindu weddings, the bride and groom feed each other, meaning that they will take care of one another in the future. Brides and grooms in ancient cultures wore crowns of wheat to represent fertility.23

It is also common in notable books pertaining to aphrodisiacs to elicit the desired effects from the substances. There was not a statement, for example, of how to prepare carrots, but rather, a necessary action of creating the proper environment around which the aphrodisiacs are ingested. Johnstone, in Aphrodisiac Foods: Eat Your Way to Ecstasy, emphasizes the importance of floral decorations, seasonal perfumes such as jasmine, a scattering of rose petals and even scented candles; “too easily discarded as a cliché, candlelight still provides the most magical, flickering surroundings for an erotic meal.”24 Similarly, Brown requests us to set the stage with a sexy invitation to dinner attached to a rose, or a deliverance of sexy underwear with a request for wear.25 It is also important to prepare the feasting area with a dimming of lights, lighting of candles, draping of lamps with scarves, floral arrangements, and once again, rose petals.26 Reiley in Fork Me, Spoon Me highly recommends the use of etiquette, along with varied settings that promote intimacy and allure such as near the fireplace, in the bathtub, in a backyard hammock or porch swing, at an outdoor picnic and in bed.27 These instances of romantic activity, suggestions of sexual relations, and general etiquette are well known worldwide and are necessary to set the stage for aphrodisiac activity. They also highlight the importance of exploring the connections between mind, body and environment.

The Mind, the Body, and the Environment

One is not born with sexuality, but instead, it evolves and changes over time and is shaped by emotions, thoughts, personalities and personal interaction on an everyday basis.28 Easily seen throughout society, gender identity is not stagnant, but shaped throughout one’s lifetime beginning at birth.29 Lastly, our sexuality is social in that it is regulated by society, for instance, through the labeling of certain actions as taboo and immoral.30 However, one should not, and certainly cannot, completely divide sexuality from biology because multiple factors, such as our sexual development and our sexual functioning and satisfaction, are shaped by biological factors.31 These conclusions reveal the need to understand sexual behavior as a product of biological, psychological, and social forces.

As we have already established, aphrodisiacs were first created to promote procreation and later for the function of increased sexual pleasure. Thus, the use of aphrodisiacs can be associated with treating so-called “sexual dysfunction,” a term used to categorize some sexual behaviors or the lack thereof. While this may initially seem like a jump, one only needs to consider the symptoms of sexual dysfunctions to find that aphrodisiacs were and continue to be used to treat these symptoms since their purpose is to increase sexual desire and potency.

Sexual dysfunctions are defined as a presence of critical symptoms: “(1) lacking desire for sex; (2) arousal difficulties (i.e. erection problems [for men] and lubrication difficulties [for women]); (3) inability to achieve climax or ejaculation; (4) anxiety about sexual performance; (5) climaxing or ejaculating too rapidly; (6) physical pain during intercourse; and (7) not finding sex pleasurable.”32 A shortened definition of the term ‘sexual dysfunction’ is behavior, “characterized by disturbances in sexual desire and in the psycho-physiological changes associated with the sexual response cycle in men and women.”33 Masters in Human Sexuality also confirms this point with the statement that the causes of sexual dysfunction are both organic, such as physical or medical factors like illness, injury or drug effects, and psychosocial, which includes psychological, interpersonal, environmental, and culturally related causes.34

It is estimated that approximately only 10 to 20 percent of sexual dysfunctions are caused solely by biological factors.35 In this sense, it is more difficult to calculate the percentage of sexual dysfunctions caused by psychosocial factors; however, considering that only 10 to 20 percent of sexual dysfunctions are solely caused by biological forces, one cannot doubt their influence.

Some significant psychosocial influences include developmental, personal, and interpersonal factors.36 Developmental factors include parent-child relationships, negative family or religious attitudes towards sex, traumatic sexual experiences and gender identity conflicts.37 Personal factors include feelings like anxiety, guilt, and depression; poor self-esteem; and fear of pregnancy, venereal disease, rejection, pain and intimacy.38 Interpersonal factors are, “of tremendous importance in most sexual dysfunctions,” and are generally seen as poor communication, power struggles, distrust, deceit, lack of physical attraction and gender role conflicts.39 While one cannot assume that just because one of the previously listed symptoms is seen between two people that they have sexual dysfunctions, one should take into account that these are all related to sexual dysfunctions and that humans’ drive to have sexual relations is not merely biological in nature.

As the connection between the mind, body and environment becomes clearer with regard to one’s sexual relations, one can easily accept Talcott Parsons’ definition of health as, “[maintaining] a favorable, self-regulated state that is a prerequisite of the effective performance of an indefinitely wide range of functions both within the system and in relations to its environments.”40 Thus, sexual activity and health are related to an individual’s psychological and biological components as well as their connection to the surrounding environment. Consequently, when examining sexual activity, one must take into consideration the social conditions affecting one’s body and mind.

Aristotle’s Association

We can begin to unwrap the effects of the environment by examining Aristotle’s concept of association. Association means that humans remember things together, “(1) when they are similar (2) when they contrast, and (3) when they are contiguous.”41 Thus, when two or more common sensations are experienced at the same time, one can trigger the other’s memory or response.42 Therefore, when common romantic themes such as the draping of lamps and lighting of candles at dinner are enjoyed between lovers, a heightened awareness of previous similar events can be recast into memory. Under this thinking, these events will associate the process of eating with behaviors commonly enjoyed before and afterwards. Thus, even if one is not aware he or she is eating foods commonly termed as aphrodisiacs, the actual act of eating within this environment can serve as an aphrodisiac due to its association with previous occurrences.

This concept of association is also in line with the study of James Mill (1773-1836), who researched how humans learn meaning. Mill explains how we learn meaning through a simple example of our association with chairs. We learn about chairs through our use of them: sitting, seeing, touching and so forth. These experiences become associated with the word ‘chair’ and will elicit our memory of previous experiences and the meaning of the word ‘chair’. Thus our experiences with an object create the meaning of the word associated with that object, and this meaning comes to mind whenever we hear the word.43

We can easily insert the word ‘aphrodisiac’ in for ‘chair,’ and the connection between learning, association and meaning becomes clear. Thus, if an individual had a positive experience with aphrodisiacs previously, their repetition would elicit memory and images of the previous. On the same token, if long dinners with one’s lover have a history of leading to sex, then naturally the invitation to a long romantic dinner will serve as an aphrodisiac simply through meaning and association. Therefore, “the meaning of a word [aphrodisiac/romantic dinner/oyster etc.] would thus be nothing but the bundle or total sum of associated ideas called to mind when the word is spoken or read,” and an illustration of the mind, body, environment connection.44

The Placebo Effect

Contrary to popular belief, science has not always been one of rational, proven knowledge as it is assumed to be today. The history of medicine until recently has been one of the history of placebos.45 If one was to combine all of the ancient remedies from China, Sumeria-Babylonia-Assyria, Egypt, India, the Hippocratic Corpus and Galen’s Pharmacopoeia, one would total 4,785 drugs and 16,842 prescriptions where all but a select few are placebos.46 Wisely enough, the Greek physician Galen said, “he cures most successfully in whom the people have the most confidence.”47

The association of the history of science, Aristotle’s association, and Mill’s meaning of language requires an intensive look at the placebo effect and what it means for science and humans. The placebo effect can be defined as, “any therapy prescribed knowingly or unknowingly by a healer, or used by laymen, for its therapeutic effect on a symptom or disease, but which actually is ineffective [or not scientifically proven] for the symptom or disorder being treated.48 A basic example of the placebo effect is the distribution of a sugar pill during a scientific study. It is generally found that 30 to 40 percent of those who take the placebo will obtain the same results as those who take the actual medication.49

Although not all people respond to placebos, those who do respond share certain characteristics. The most frequent signals that influence the effect of a placebo are the patient-healer relationship, the environment of the clinical setting, the level of anxiety in the patient, an expectation of improvement, the seriousness of the illness, the pattern of symptoms, and the makeup of the placebo.50 If the healer is perceived as being warm, likable and genuinely interested in treating the patient, there is a positive chance of a placebo working. The direct atmosphere of the clinical setting will create a positive reaction to the placebo if it is pleasant, non-threatening and efficient.51 One should note that therapists generally decorate their offices with book lined walls, a large couch, and framed certificates of their achievements as to instill a sense of security, mysticism and stature.52 A positive chance of placebo success is also seen in patients who often endure anxiety and tend to trust that the procedure being undergone will work, as well as in patients who have overlapping feelings of, “optimism, enthusiasm, hope, faith, belief, motivation, and conditioning.”53 Patients who suffer from minor illnesses with symptoms that return and cease over time will also have a greater possibility of placebo success.54 Lastly, the actual composition of the substance being ingested makes a difference in its reception. If the placebo is a shot rather than a pill, a bitter or unpleasant smell or taste rather than odorless or tasteless, of a higher price, or has a new and improved packaging, the placebo effect is more likely to occur.55

Placebos present the additional healing effects in patients that are separate from purely pharmacological and surgical means.56 Thus, they serve as a direct example of the importance of conceiving of the body holistically and its relation to the environment. As Harrington states, “whatever additional role placebos play in the world of medical science, they certainly function as a powerful reminder to thoughtful scholars and researchers that our minds, brains, and bodies navigate a far more seamless reality than we, in our insular academic departments, know how to study.”57

A Medical Smear

The medical system’s difficulty in equating environmental factors with illness spawns from multiple factors of how the body, health and illness are constructed. Although the placebo effect exposes the consequences of having a narrow view of healing without regard to environment and mental state, the medical discipline has still maintained the view of the body as mechanistic and individualistic.58 It is believed that a body has certain functions and that these functions can be separated from society and clinically studied just like animals.59 This mechanistic treatment, “has resulted in the tendency to view it as a series of discrete parts and systems instead of as a complex whole….health maintenance, healing, and therapy are engineering problems.”60

Modern medicine is also individualistic in that it treats the body and the disease as one and does not take into account the wider physical and social environment. Furthermore, the emphasis has largely been on treatment when the disease forms in the body rather than on the wider social context of prevention.61 While one may want to refute this statement, one only has to look at the allocation of funding in terms of prevention and treatment. Vast sums of money are invested in high-technology cardiac units while little money is poured into investigating sources of pathology in society or into successful preventative measures.62

Interestingly enough, in the report “On The limitations of Modern Medicine” by John Powles, the effectiveness of the cardiac health unit was found to be the same as home care.63 This is largely because the cardiac health unit is created to measure the heart rate of an individual and if any changes occur, doctors will have immediate notice and ability to correct the problem. However, there is the problem that the heart is very susceptible to changes in emotion and mood which undoubtedly occur when an individual is hooked up to a machine, in a sterile and strange hospital setting, away from familiar surroundings and family.64 Thus, while the individual may be able to receive better care in a cardiac unit because of the proximity to the doctors, the actual unit itself and the anxiety caused may put more pressure on the heart than if the individual were at home.65 This is not to say that the medical treatment within a hospital is harmful, but rather, that psychological, symbolic and ritualistic features are deeply involved and interconnected.

An additional inhibitor to proving aphrodisiacs medically is the loss of environment that is necessary for their functioning. As mentioned earlier, aphrodisiac cookbooks first mention, “setting the stage,” for ingestion of aphrodisiacs. Candlelit tables, scented potpourri, and dimmed lights are difficult to replicate in a controlled setting such as laboratory, or, if they are replicated, seem superficial given that they exist in order to facilitate observation by third parties. Furthermore, Masters found that individuals who wish to be watched during sex are generally abnormal and they may have other undisclosed abnormalities that may skew the results.66 Additionally, the increased pressure put on the individuals to perform could inhibit the experience and lead them to act irregularly. The Hawthorne Effect could also be potent when dealing with sexual experiences because people may want to hide embarrassing facts or brag about their experience.67

One may pose an argument for the substances to be tested in animals such as rats before being tested on humans. However, humans and rats are certainly not the same, and the psychological, environmental and bodily influences in humans are surely not all present within rats. Even if researchers decided to study the effects in rats, how would they design an environment that would be equivalent to a human’s candlelit dinner? Because aphrodisiacs are so heavily dependent on environment for their functioning, this exclusion would greatly inhibit studying the full effects of aphrodisiacs.

The implications of these findings are vast. If the effectiveness of aphrodisiacs is difficult to prove scientifically because of their connection with the environment, mind and body, what other treatments are humans missing out on? Are humans actually depriving themselves of various forms of healing because of the nature of the scientific process and the need for a controlled setting that may influence the mind-body-environment connection? The elimination of the environmental and societal factors that occur in everyday life are usually absent from testing because of the sole focus on the body. This opens the door for a variety of unproven healing methods and also questions the functioning of various treatments that are already proven to work.

What Do Aphrodisiacs Tell Us About American Society?

The use of aphrodisiacs by our earliest ancestors, carried through to today, tells us a great deal about society, science and the conception of the body. Aphrodisiacs show us that there is value in eating together, as has been proven through evolution.

We also learn that humans often do not conduct sexual behavior based on biological factors alone. Sexual development may be affected by biology, but sexual behavior and sexuality are largely affected by psychological and societal forces. Additionally, just as one does not merely function biologically, neither do aphrodisiacs, which require a specific environment and an open mind on the part of the user.

Aphrodisiacs teach us that the history of science is actually in part the history of the placebo, and that in order to perform the most effective healing, science must consider and incorporate the connection between the human mind, body and outer environment.

Above all, we see that science does not hold a single ultimate answer to sexual dysfunction. Though these problems are indeed complicated, sometimes the best answer may just be a classic candlelight dinner. And don’t forget the rose petals. paJ

About the Author: Cynthia Bors graduated from William Smith College magna cum laude in 2008 with a double major in Political Science and International Relations. Cynthia is currently employed as a proprietary trader with Lynx Capital LLC in Manhattan, and will pursue a career in law.

(Notes)

1. “Understanding Herbal Terminology.” CNCA. 2007. Cancer Nutrition Centers of America. 9 May 2008
   <http://www.cncahealth.com/health-notes.htm?ContentID=2107001>.
2. Hospodar, Miriam. “Aphrodisiac Foods: Bringing Heaven to Earth.” Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture. No. 4 (2004), 84.
3. Ratsch, Christian. Plants of Love: The History of Aphrodisiacs and A Guide to Their Identification and Use. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 1997, 29.
4. Ibid, 29.
5. Ibid, 29.
6. Hospodar, 87.
7. Nickell, Nancy L. Nature’s Aphrodisiacs. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press, 1999, 9.
8. Ratsch, 87.
9. Ibid, 17.
10. Hospodar, 89.
11. Ibid, 90.
12. Ibid, 90.
13. Ibid, 90.
14. Ibid, 90.
15. Johnstone, Hilary and Craig Dodd. Aphrodisiac Foods: Eat Your Way to Ecstasy. Italy: Carlton Books Limited, 1999, 7.
16. Ratsch, 24.
17. Brown, Diane. The Seduction Cookbook: Culinary Creations for Lovers. New York: First Innova
    Publishing, 2005, xi.
18. Allgeier, Elizabeth Rice, and Albert Richard Allgeier. Sexual Interactions. 3rd ed. Lexington MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1991.
19. Allgeier and Allgeier, 73.
20. Ibid, 73.
21. Scott, Paul. Aphrodisiacs: Touch, Taste, Sight, Smell, Hearing. London: Ryland, Peters & Small, 2007, 19.
22. Albertson, Ellen and Michael Albertson. Temptations: Igniting the Pleasure and Power of Aphrodisiacs. New York: Fireside, 2002.
23. Ibid, 18.
24. Johnstone and Dodd, 10.
25. Brown, xv.
26. Ibid, 1.
27. Reiley, Amy. Fork Me, Spoon Me: The Sensual Cookbook. Somerset PA: AmyReiley, 2005, 14.
28. Masters, William H., Virginia E. Johnson, Robert C. Kolodny. Human Sexuality. New York, 1992, 5.
29. Ibid, 5.
30. Ibid, 5.
31. Ibid, 5.
32. Laumann, Edward, Anthony Paik, and Raymond C. Rosen. “Sexual Dysfunction in the United States:
    Prevalence and Predictors.” Sex, Love, and Health in America: Private Choices and Public Policies 2001:
    352-376, p 355.
33. Laumann et al., 354.
34. Masters et al, 549.
35. Ibid, 549.
36. Ibid, 551.
37. Ibid, 550.
38. Ibid, 551.
39. Ibid, 551.
40. In Laumann et al., 353
41. Rachlin, Howard. Introduction To Modern Behaviorism. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991, 12.
42. Ibid, 12.
43. Ibid, 14.
44. Ibid, 14.
45. Harrington, Anne. The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. USA: Harvard University Press, 1999, 13.
46. Ibid, 13.
47. Quoted in Harrington, 13.
48. Ibid, 12.
49. Ibid, 13.
50. Harrington, 30.
51. Ibid, 30.
52. Kinsley, David. Health, Healing, and Religion: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1996, 163.
53. Harrington, 30.
54. Ibid, 30.
55. Kinsley, 160.
56. Kinsley, 166.
57. Harrington, 8.
58. Ratsch, 26.
59. Ibid, 26.
60. Kinsley, 171.
61. Ibid, 173.
62. Kinsley, 173.
63. Ibid, 175.
64. Ibid, 175.
65. Ibid, 175.
66. Masters et al.,33
67. Ibid, 37.