Sex in Human Loving

by Eric Berne

Eric Berne, best known as the originator of transactional analysis and the author of the 1965 classic Games People Play, presents a comprehensive overview of sexuality based on a series of lectures he delivered in 1966.

Genres: Psychology, Sexuality, Nonfiction, Relationships, Love

209 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Eric Berne was a Canadian-born psychiatrist best known as the creator of transactional analysis. Eric was born on May 10, 1910 as Eric Lennard Bernstein in Montreal, Canada.He and his sister Grace, who was five years younger than Eric, were the children of a physician and a writer, David and Sara Gordon Bernstein.David Bernstein died in 1921, and the children were raised by their mother.

Bernstein attended Montreal's McGill University, graduating in 1931 and earning his M.D., C.M. in 1935.While at McGill he wrote for several student newspapers using pseudonyms. He followed graduation with a residency in psychiatry at Yale University, where he studied psychoanalysis under Paul Federn.

In 1943 he changed his legal name to Eric Berne.He continued to use pseudonyms, such as Cyprian St. Cyr ("Cyprian Sincere"), for whimsical articles in the Transactional Analysis Bulletin.

Berne's training was interrupted by World War II and his service in the Army Medical Corps, where he was promoted to the rank of Major. After working at Bushnell Army Hospital in Ogden, Utah, he was discharged in 1945.

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this ultra-obscure tome (9 goodreads reviews??) based on a handful of sudden motivations. I spied the book stashed away in a drawer at a friend's house, for just long enough to notice that it was written by Eric Berne, who had written Games People Play, a book I once stole from my father's bookshelf but also one that a college roommate of mine greatly admired. As a human, "sex" and "loving" are important topics that are often on my mind; the relationship between the two being quite a large source of ongoing consideration.

The title stuck with me, so I looked it up on the internet, found some bootleg New Zealand website that had a crystal clear PDF, downloaded it to my iPad, and then read the whole thing in 3 sittings.

In the Q&A in the appendix of the book -- apparently culled largely from lectures, though it does not feel like reading a series of lectures -- Berne is asked, "How can you account for so many laughs from all of us on such a serious subject?" and replies, "Since sex is supposed to be fun, I don't see why a lecture about it shouldn't be fun too." Replace lecture with book, and there you go. It's a fun read, littered with strange and hilarious and often just slightly misogynistic jokes (hey, it was written in the 70s) while still being completely serious and thoughtful on the topics of sexuality and human psychology.

When I was in college, I tried reading Games People Play, and struggled with it. I had trouble imagining all the details of all the different transactional analyses being described, constantly trying to shoe-horn myself into one of the "Games" and wondering what the purpose was. Am I supposed to learn to be a player? Am I supposed to identify my role in games and thwart it or encourage it? Perhaps I was too young or impatient or self-obsessed to extract useful lessons for myself. Yet, I had similar problems in the brief section on Sexual Games in this book, as Berne immediately gets hot and heavy with his encyclopedia of games, cycling through example after example of human dynamics and quick descriptions of the way they play out. This section ends quickly though, and the moral(s) of the story come into focus: don't play those games! Seek true intimacy! *Actually* talk and *actually* see your partner!

Also there is this whole thing about free will being a bit of an illusion, but that we can recognize this about ourselves and work hard to change the scripts that govern so much of our behavior, if we try. Perhaps this is why I've been in therapy for the past 7 years.

Perhaps I could have just gone straight to Freud, but I have a feeling I enjoyed this book more than I would have reading Old Siggy.

[Sari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uzimajući u obzir moju slabu upućenost u transakcionu analizu, razmišljala sam se da li je uopšte moje mjesto da ostavim komentar i recenziju ove knjige, ali ljepota interneta i demokratije (diskutabilno) je u tome što svi imaju pravo glasa. Zato će moj komentar biti iz ćoška polu-laika. Teško da je u ovoj knjizi rečeno o ljudskim odnosima nešto što se nije moglo izvući iz autorove mnogo popularnije knjige "Koju igru igraš" koju sam pročitala prije nekoliko godina, kada sam bila još i manje upućena u, recimo, različite teorije ljudske prirode i čovjekovog odnosa sa drugima a i onoga sa samim sobom. Pogledi na žene i muškarce i heteroseksualne veze su dosta zastareli što možemo naravno pripisati godinama kada je knjiga pisana, mjestu gdje je knjiga pisana, akademskim krugovima u kojima je nastala i za koje je pisana, i činjenici da sada moja generacija živi u manje strogim podjelama muških i ženskih odlika/ponašanja/stila života. U knjizi se rijetko pominju odnosi i ljudi koji nisu heteroseksualni, a i kada se pomenu, o njima se ne priča kao da su realistični i kao da je njima moguće zadovoljiti seksualne potrebe, po nekom autorovom pravom smislu seksa. Njegov pokušaj da humorom maskira nelagodu koja dolazi sa pisanjem o seksu čini knjigu i težom za čitanje, što može biti i falinka prevoda, a možda opet i perioda u kojem je pisana (gdje je možda njegova namjera bila da "olakša" škakljive teme tog vremena). Sve u svemu, prva polovina knjige je bila teža za čitati, dok je druga donekle interesantnija.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this sometimes humorous and curious book Dr. Eric Berne, psychiatrist, professes to understand human sexuality through his years of psychiatric practice and provides an interesting perspective through the lens of someone who understands the intricacies of human games and transactions.

[Emerson Azarbakht]

Berne's book initially appears to be a book about sex. By the end, sex has become almost a case study for a much larger question: How much of what we call love, attraction, choice, and relationship is genuinely chosen—and how much is biology, childhood programming, hunger, habit, or psychological games?

Berne's destination is autonomy. Sex matters because it is one of the places where biology, vulnerability, childhood, social rules, desire, recognition, and intimacy collide most powerfully. Berne isn't primarily writing a book about sex. He's using sex as a particularly revealing window into how human beings seek recognition, enact childhood scripts, defend themselves against vulnerability, and—occasionally—achieve genuine intimacy.

The whole book in one model
Biology — "I reproduce."
→ Desire — "I want you."
→ Psychological need — "I want something from being wanted by you."
→ Script — "This is how relationships are supposed to go for someone like me."
→ Game — "I'll maneuver you into playing your part."
→ Payoff — "The familiar outcome confirms what I already believe."
OR
→ Awareness — "I recognize what I'm doing."
→ Autonomy — "I don't have to repeat it."
→ Intimacy — "I can encounter you directly without playing the game."

That last fork is the conceptual center of the book.

Introduction — Talking About Sex
Berne begins with language. The words people use for sex reveal their attitudes toward it. Knowing anatomy or sexual mechanics is not the same thing as understanding sexuality, because human sex is embedded in personality, fantasy, social rules, shame, desire, and relationships.

Sex isn't merely something bodies do. It is something personalities do through bodies.

PART ONE: SEX AND SEX ORGANS

Ch. 1 — Why Sex Is Necessary
Sexual reproduction mixes genetic material and thereby creates variation. But human beings have transformed this biological mechanism into something vastly more elaborate. Human sexual behavior can serve reproduction, pleasure, reassurance, bonding, status, identity, emotional regulation, power, recognition, and many other psychological functions.

So Berne separates two questions:
• Why does sex exist biologically?
• Why does this particular person want sex with this particular person right now?

Biology can answer the first much better than the second. Once sex becomes psychological, a person's history enters the bedroom with them—their expectations, prohibitions, fantasies, childhood experiences and ideas about what men, women, love and relationships are supposed to be.

Key takeaway: Biology explains why sexuality exists; psychology helps explain what an individual does with it.

Ch. 2 — The Sexual Act
Much of the beginning concerns anatomy, arousal, orgasm and male/female physiology—material that reflects the science and terminology of the late 1960s. The psychologically interesting part is Berne's insistence that sexual functioning isn't simply mechanical. Someone can physically desire another person while simultaneously carrying anxiety, guilt, resentment, fear of rejection or a need to perform.

physiological arousal ≠ desire ≠ consent ≠ relationship meaning. They're related variables, not synonyms.

Key takeaway: sexual performance ≠ intimacy. Two people can have technically successful sex without meaningful intimacy.

Ch. 3 — The Exploitation of the Sex Organs
By "exploitation" Berne doesn't necessarily mean abuse. He means using sexual organs and sexual activity to accomplish some other psychological or social purpose: attention, validation, security, status, control, revenge, reassurance, money, belonging, proof of attractiveness, relief from loneliness.

Humans have enormous amounts of time to fill, and genuine intimacy frightens us. Sex becomes one way to structure time. Berne's six ways humans structure time: withdrawal, rituals, pastimes, activities, games, intimacy.

Instead of "I desire you and want to be close to you," the underlying transaction might be "I need evidence that somebody wants me." The sexual act may look identical from outside, but psychologically the transactions are very different.

The physical act doesn't tell you what psychological transaction is taking place. Two couples can perform exactly the same sexual act while doing psychologically opposite things.

Key takeaway: Sexual behavior often serves needs that aren't primarily sexual.

PART TWO: SEX AND PEOPLE

Ch. 4 — Forms of Human Relationship
Berne brings in the Transactional Analysis model:
• Parent — internalized rules, prohibitions, permissions, judgments, caretaking. "You should." "People like us don't do that." Parent isn't inherently bad; it contains valuable inherited knowledge as well as prejudice and obsolete rules.
• Adult — "What is actually happening now?" It gathers evidence, evaluates probabilities, considers consequences. Adult isn't simply "being mature." It is the reality-processing function.
• Child — desire, play, sexual excitement, curiosity, fear, jealousy, rebellion, spontaneity, delight. "I WANT." Sexual turn-on belongs primarily here. Without Child there is little play, sexuality, spontaneity, or joy.

The three can disagree.
Child: "I want this person." Adult: "This person is wildly incompatible with the life I want." Parent: "Absolutely unacceptable."
Or: Adult: "Practically perfect for me." Parent: "Exactly the kind of person you should marry." Child: "…nothing." That's the classic "Perfect on paper, but there's no chemistry." Berne's framework predicts it naturally.

Turn-on is not love. Berne works through a progression of relationship forms:
• Turn-on — My Child sexually responds to you.
• Admiration — Something about you impresses me.
• Respect — I regard you as worthy/competent.
• Affection — I care about your welfare.
• Companionship — I enjoy doing things with you.
• Friendship — I enjoy and trust you as a person.
• Intimacy — I can encounter you directly without maneuvering.
• Love — a larger relationship potentially incorporating several of these.
• Marriage — potentially many of the above bundled together.

These dimensions correlate imperfectly. You can desire someone you don't respect, respect someone you don't desire, love someone without much turn-on, have spectacular sex without intimacy, have deep intimacy without sex, and admire someone who is terrible for you.

In TA, intimacy means direct, spontaneous, game-free contact between people. There isn't a hidden transaction underneath the apparent transaction. "I want you" risks rejection. "I'll make you jealous so you'll prove you want me" protects against that vulnerability by manipulating the situation. That vulnerability is precisely why intimacy is difficult.

Relationship intensity and relationship completeness are different things.

Key takeaway: Desire, affection, friendship, intimacy and love overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

Ch. 5 — Sexual Games
This is essentially Games People Play applied to sexuality and romance.

Parental programming → script. Long before an adult sexual relationship, people absorb messages: "Men can't be trusted." "Women will trap you." "You're the pretty one." "Don't depend on anyone." "Sex is dirty." "Real men get women." "Good girls don't." The child interprets these and makes early conclusions, which form the life script—an unconscious narrative: "What kind of life happens to someone like me?"

Six script-time patterns:
• NEVER — "I can never have what I really want."
• ALWAYS — "This always happens to me."
• UNTIL — "I can't enjoy life until X happens."
• AFTER — "I can enjoy this, but I'll pay afterward."
• OVER AND OVER — "Almost… failed. Start again."
• OPEN-ENDED — "I've completed everything I was supposed to do. Now what?"

"Until" is particularly dangerous: after school, after promotion, after this project, after I make enough money… Eventually decades have passed. Berne's question is not "Is career focus bad?" It's "Who decided when you're allowed to start living?"

The script creates its own evidence. Script: "Nobody stays." Person selects an inconsistent partner → becomes anxious → tests the partner → partner feels controlled → withdraws → testing intensifies → partner leaves → "See? Nobody stays." The belief appears empirically verified, but the script partly created the conditions that produced the evidence.

Scripts organize partner selection. We may not merely play games with randomly encountered people; we may preferentially select people capable of playing our game. His script: "If anyone gets close, escape." Her script: "I must win over someone unavailable." She pursues; he withdraws. Both emerge thinking: "See? I knew it."

Script compatibility can feel like extraordinary chemistry. "I've never felt this strongly about anyone" may mean "This person activates something extraordinarily deep in my Child." Intensity does not prove compatibility.

Games execute scripts. A game is a recurring sequence containing an ulterior transaction that moves toward a predictable switch and payoff:
Con + Gimmick = Response → Switch → Crossup → Payoff
• The Con is bait. The Gimmick is something in the other person that makes the bait effective. A: "Nobody ever really understands me." B, a rescuer: "I understand you." Games are often co-produced.
• The Switch: the helpless person becomes accusatory, the seducer becomes rejecter, the rescuer becomes persecutor.
• The Crossup: "What the hell just happened?"
• The Payoff often isn't pleasant—anger, humiliation, rejection, superiority. It's a payoff because it confirms the script. Both leave miserable, but both have returned to a familiar psychological universe.

Why seek painful outcomes? Predictable pain can feel psychologically safer than unpredictable intimacy. A healthy relationship creates uncertainty—"Maybe this person actually loves me"—which threatens the old worldview. A game restores certainty.

Why games instead of intimacy? Because intimacy is dangerous. Instead of "I'm afraid I'm not desirable," someone flirts with another person to provoke jealousy. Instead of "I'm angry with you," they withhold sex. Instead of "I want reassurance that you love me," they manufacture a test. The game indirectly obtains strokes while avoiding direct vulnerability.

The illusion of autonomy. Someone says, "This is just the kind of person I'm attracted to." Berne asks: Why? And why does the relationship keep ending the same way? If the desire itself is heavily scripted, following it automatically isn't necessarily autonomy.

Key takeaway: When different partners repeatedly produce remarkably similar relationship stories, look for the script—not merely the partner.

Ch. 6 — Sex and Well-Being, or Preventive Intimacy
People don't merely need calories and shelter. They need strokes: signs that another human recognizes their existence. If positive recognition isn't available, people may seek negative recognition rather than none.

The Six Hungers:
1. Stimulus — "I need to feel something."
2. Recognition — "I need someone to see me."
3. Contact — "I need human touch."
4. Sexual — "I want erotic gratification."
5. Structure — "I need something to organize my time."
6. Incident — "I need something to happen."

All six can masquerade as "I need a relationship" or "I need sex." You can obtain the thing you thought you wanted and remain unsatisfied. Perhaps you fed the wrong hunger.

Repeated sexual conquest may function as an external self-esteem regulator: "Am I attractive?" → seduce someone → "Yes" → temporary relief → "Am I still attractive?"

A turbulent relationship can be objectively miserable yet psychologically nutrient-dense—constant emotion, attention, reconciliation sex, endless relationship management, something always happening. This helps explain why "That's toxic; leave" often fails to explain why someone stays.

"Preventive intimacy" plays on preventive medicine: satisfying contact and intimacy may contribute to well-being before loneliness, deprivation and games become severe. And Berne watches the little word "but": "I'd love to be close to somebody, but… I'm too busy / I'm not ready / people always disappoint me." The part after "but" often reveals the structure that prevents it.

(Some of Berne's claims linking sexual contact, marriage and physical health reflect his era and should not be taken as modern medical conclusions.)

Key takeaway: What humans fundamentally seek isn't orgasm alone but contact, recognition and intimacy; sex is one unusually powerful way of providing them.

PART THREE: AFTERPLAY

Ch. 7 — Questions
An extended Q&A from the lectures the book was based on. Several distinctions become clearer:
ego state ≠ social role
sexual behavior ≠ sexual motivation
marriage ≠ intimacy
orgasm ≠ successful relationship
following desire ≠ necessarily acting autonomously

Ch. 8 — A Man of the World
Berne's sophisticated sexual man knows how to seduce, flirt, perform, conduct affairs and avoid embarrassment. He appears completely liberated. But sexual competence ≠ sexual autonomy. He may simply be extraordinarily competent at executing his script.

Someone can be sexually experienced and intimately inexperienced. They know how to say "Come home with me" but not "I need you." They can undress physically. They cannot undress psychologically.

Experience isn't necessarily learning. Someone might have had one hundred relationships, but if each follows attraction → conquest → closeness → anxiety → withdrawal → breakup, they may have had one experience one hundred times. Learning occurs when the next iteration can have a different outcome.

Adult itself can be recruited by the script. If Child decided "Never let anyone get close enough to hurt me," Adult may become brilliant at implementing the policy: wrong timing, career incompatibility, geography, chemistry changed. Each explanation may be plausible. But if twenty relationships produce the same ending: Look at the pattern, not merely the explanation. Adult can become the lawyer for the script.

Obedience and rebellion can be mirror images.
• Obedience — "I'll do what they told me."
• Rebellion — "I'll do exactly the opposite."
• Autonomy — "I'll determine what I want now."
Would you be doing this if there had been nothing to rebel against? The autonomous choice might end up traditional or liberal, monogamous or not, adventurous or restrained. The external behavior doesn't prove autonomy. The process that generated the choice matters.

The healthy person can access Child spontaneity and pleasure, Adult reality-testing, and useful Parent values without being unconsciously dominated by any of them.

Appendix — The Classification of Human Relationships
Two people don't have one relationship. They have several simultaneous ego-state relationships: Parent↔Parent (shared values), Adult↔Adult (planning, problem-solving), Child↔Child (play, sexuality), Parent→Child (caretaking or control), Adult→Child (teaching).

"We're basically roommates now" becomes more precise: Adult–Adult, Parent–Parent, household and co-parenting excellent—but Child–Child play, turn-on and intimacy low. The relationship hasn't disappeared. Certain channels have disappeared.

"Perfect on paper" doesn't guarantee desire: Adult cannot simply command Child, "Be horny." Romantic compatibility can't be reduced to a résumé.

Marriage is a bundle, not a single relationship. "Is this a good marriage?" may be too crude. Better: "Which relationships within the marriage work, and which don't?"

DRAMA VS. INTIMACY
Jealousy, obsession, fights, breakups, reconciliation, fantastic makeup sex, constant texting—the relationship feels DEEP. Berne asks: Is it intimate—or merely intense?
Intensity measures activation. Intimacy measures directness. They aren't the same variable.

For Berne, intimacy is a game-free direct encounter. No con. No gimmick. No concealed payoff. Instead: "I want you." "I'm afraid." "That hurt." "I'm jealous." "I don't want sex." "I don't want the same relationship you want." The social transaction and the psychological transaction line up. That is what makes intimacy both simple and terrifying.

The book's deepest paradox: Games provide control but reduce intimacy. Intimacy requires surrendering some control but increases genuine contact.
A game says: "I'll arrange circumstances so you give me the answer I need."
Intimacy says: "I'll tell you what I need, and you are free to answer."

AUTONOMY
• Awareness — see present reality rather than what the script predicts. What is actually happening?
• Spontaneity — access to different possible responses. "I can choose how to respond."
• Intimacy — encounter another person directly without converting the encounter into a game.
Awareness + Spontaneity + Intimacy = Autonomy.

THE BOOK IN ONE PAGE
• Sex isn't merely sex. People use it for reproduction, pleasure, recognition, contact, reassurance, excitement, status, games, and intimacy.
• Desire isn't love. Turn-on, affection, admiration, friendship, compatibility, intimacy and love are separate dimensions.
• People have multiple hungers that can masquerade as wanting sex or a relationship.
• Childhood programming matters. Parent messages plus Child conclusions form scripts.
• Scripts seek confirmation. People may select partners and create transactions that repeatedly produce familiar endings.
• Games execute scripts.
• Intensity isn't intimacy.
• Sex isn't intimacy. Physical nakedness can coexist with profound psychological defensiveness.
• Relationship compatibility is multidimensional.
• Rebellion isn't necessarily autonomy.
• Experience isn't necessarily learning.

The question to retain above everything else:

"What am I trying to get indirectly that I could ask for directly?"

That single question connects scripts, games, recognition hunger, vulnerability, intimacy, and autonomy—essentially the whole psychological argument of Sex in Human Loving.

[Hollie (she her) · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bizzarely intriguing book which combines science and psychology to bring you Sex in Human Loving. I knew of Eric Berne from a conversation regarding his other book, Games People Play, which was particularly prominent when it came to being in the dating scene. And funnily enough a few months later, my friend (you know who you see!) called out to me in a Bristol charity Bookshop 'Hey Hollie, I picked up this book and thought of you!' which I STILL remember as clear as day and makes me giggle to myself. But yes... On to the book review!
In Berne's introduction 'Talking about sex' he approaches the subject in lots of different ways... Cold dry words, warm damp words, obscene words... You get the gist. At some points he goes off into such a tangent it's unfathomable to understand what he's talking and what scenarios he's played out in his mind, so I did hade to skip some things.
The chapters which were particularly engaging: Why Sex is Necessary, The Explanation of the Sexual Organs, and Sex and People was really well written and was more easy to digest, and had the fine balance between science and psychology and explores all realistic scenarios of human (and animal) relationships which may cause them to behave in the manner which is acceptable to them.

Favourite fact : Of all species in the world, snails are the ones who enjoy sex the most, as they are technically hermaphrodites and can have any kind of sex.

How about that?

Some key things I read and wanted to share which were pretty... Poignant, and switched me over into feminist mode. But then I have to realise that this was written in the 70s, there was little research conducted on women and much more has been discovered since then...

Chapter 1 'Why sex is necessary' Page 46 :
''... Nowadays, the duty of a woman to give her man the orgasm she thinks he cravesx and the duty of a man to give his woman the kind of orgasm she imagines is there''

OH RIGHT, SO WOMEN JUST IMAGINE ORGASMS LIKE THEY'RE SANTA CLAUS, OR AN IMAGINARY FRIEND? 😐😐😐 (FYI Berne, they can last for up to 20 seconds and be just as good, if not better than the male orgasm.

Chapter 2' The Sexual Act' Page 59:
Berne writes a page and half all about dicks and their muscles... When talking about the vagina..
'' With the women, things are more complicated''
Berne did you manage to work out what a vagina was? FACE PALM

Chapter 3' The Sexual Act' Page 67:
''.... The most voluptuous area is where the shaft and the cap meet at the corona (of the penis) ''

Oooft, not the time to be talking about corona in penises....

[Gabriela Svagr · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Některá zvířata můžeme vycvičit k různým občasným kouskům, ale nikdy je nezkrotíme. Jiné druhy zkrotit lze, a kromě toho i vycvičit. Jen člověk je ovšem krotký od samého počátku a celý život předvádí nějaké kousky pro páníčky. Napřed pro mámu s tátou, pak pro učitele ve škole a nakonec pro někoho, kdo se ho ujme a naučí ho, jak se takovými kousky živit, ať už v míru, ve válce či za revoluce. Jaká revoluce? S tím jděte do háje, teď musím na jeviště, za chvilku mi začíná výstup. Kung-fu nebo kung-pao, vždyť je to jedno. Důvěřovat, makat, poslouchat, o to tady běží. Padouch nebo hrdina, my jsme jedna rodina. Kdo chce s vlky býti, musí s nimi výti, jinak ho rozsápou na kusy. Poslouchat, poslouchat se musí – buď ty poslušné, nebo ty neposlušné. Fronta se tvoří vlevo, druhá vpravo, hlavně se necourejte uprostřed. Špatně, klidně se courejte, hlavně si nestoupejte do fronty. A koukejte být v pohodě a free, to je rozkaz! Hlavně neposlouchejte ty pitomce. Poslouchejte jenom ty naše pitomce. Anarchie nebo nic! Kupředu levá! Hergot, jak to že nejste v pohodě? Musíte být originální a dělat si věci po svém, ne, ne, ne, takhle ne, takhle to má být! Každý se musí chovat spontánně, a běda jestli ne."

[Жанна Пояркова · Rating 1 out of 5]

Книга, которая рассматривает секс с интонацией желающего всем угодить добряка и шутника, но при этом полная неосознаваемого махрового сексизма. Женщины в этой книге уже могут быть опасны, играя со слабостями мужчины, но вот глава про то, как люди "заводятся", посвящена почему-то одним мужчинам. Эй, я хочу почитать, как заводятся телки, и нет, не в книге автора-женщины, что за гетто. Автор подключает мнение своей подруги, чтобы покрыть тему секса с "женской точки зрения", но этого недостаточно. В общем, интонация добропорядочного бюргера семьянина вкупе с дурацкими шутками (автор считает, что смех помогает бороться с комплексами, что верно, но юмор - слишком индивидуальная штука, чтобы интонации подходили всем) и минимумом полезной информации вызывает отвращение. Хорошие намерения автора вступают в клинч с результатом. Да что уж там - там в конце есть раздел "Афоризмы" с дурацкими поговорками про жен и мужей. Это финиш. Пока худшая книга, случайно прочитанная в этом году.

При этом часть про голод по прикосновениям и отыгрываемые бездушные роли норм, в этом есть база, хотя в ролях Берна масса материала для споров.

[Marina Scalia · Rating 4 out of 5]

L'analisi transazionale si basa sull'idea secondo cui ciascuno di noi ha tre "Io": quello del Genitore, che è il più giudicante; quello del Bambino: il più libero; infine, l'Adulto, che tenta di mediare tra i primi due. Questo libro ha il pregio di abituare chi legge a un tipo di autoriflessione capace di scrollare un po' di polvere da certi nostri meccanismi inconsci. Qualunque nostro comportamento o decisione è in larga parte inconsapevole e riferibile a schemi in cui i tre "Io" sono tutti coinvolti.
Questo esercizio di "riportare alla consapevolezza" diventa ancora più interessante se applicato a un argomento scivoloso come il sesso, che, se da una parte per il suo essere tabù porta con sé alcune complicazioni, dall'altra è per sua natura stessa immediato e intuitivo.
Certo, traspare chiaramente che il testo risale agli anni '70, ma questo a mio avviso è un punto di forza, in quanto può essere storicamente interessante scoprire cosa fosse considerato nuovo e scandaloso per un lettore del tempo.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat disappointing. Firstly it is very dated now. When it was written sex was such a taboo subject that any potentially offensive publication had to be sufficiently wrapped in cotton wool in order to pass censorship. Berne, recognised this for what it was and, with a sense of ridicule, censored his own words.
Secondly, for those who are already familiar with transactional analysis, it offered nothing new. A better book to read about this subject would be "The Games People Play".

[Vladislav Mikhov · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has a great paragraph about fetishes, love and gives a brilliant explanation of the most closest forms of relationships from the view point of transactional analysis. The rest 80 percent of this book... well... i didn't get it.

[Sachin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slightly dated, but extremely funny book. It would give David Reuben's Everything you Wanted to Know about Sex' a good run for its money. It matches the Reuben book in its wit and wisdom.

[Kyle Thompson · Rating 1 out of 5]

A waste of paper and brain cells.

[Michael David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Last year, out of a desire to research the fiction I was writing about, I read up on official Jehovah's Witnesses literature. I've discovered that ever since I read Torrey's Mind Game: Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists, I wanted to know more about what I thought and how I interacted with the world. It's high time, as I'm already approaching thirty years old. I want to understand myself more, not in omphaloskepsis, but in a more pragmatic level such as my approach toward my sexuality.

I've always stuck to the traditional (and anachronistic) way as regards sex, and it's only recently that I've questioned myself as to why. Eric Berne elucidates on this matter in this book, suggesting that it's all about the Parental edict (the ego-state, not my real-life parents).

The great thing about my parents (my human ones) is that they remain consistent followers of what they taught me: my father married at the age of 32. He already was working as a lawyer. My mother, on the other hand, was already working as a nurse.

In I'm OK - You're OK, Thomas Harris insists on parental consistency: in fact, he alludes to the first stage of Erikson's psychosocial development when he says that it is consistency that is the foundation of trust. Though some of us try to escape our own families, our parents will always be commanding presences in our lives.

And my parents were consistent. My dad would cut short his work in the office to actually exhort me to learn ten new vocabulary words every day during our school breaks. My mother, on the other hand, would painstakingly provide meals for us every single day.

My father never messed around, as he was a permanent fixture in the household, and it was the consistency of his edict as a parent that encouraged consistency in my Parental ego-state. I was raised under an Until script (which is the script that I couldn't become successful unless I completed certain tasks). I was always to put my studies first before romancing the opposite sex, and because my parents were consistent with their commands, I was compliant.

My father has always been a stand-up guy. He'd wake me up at four in the morning just to make sure that every one of his children was punctual at school, and his only vice was occasionally overeating (not one of mine) and hoarding books (definitely my central vice). He always respected my mother, despite their disagreements and arguments, bolstered my intellect, inspired me to read and study, and transformed me to his intellectual equal.

Through reading different fiction and non-fiction, I've already broken free from the illusion of autonomy: I'm aware that my morality was deeply influenced by a father who was always present and inspired his children to become intellectual bulwarks, and a mother who was there to emotionally shore-up her children's emotional weaknesses.

I'm really not surprised why the pursuit of sexual intercourse is not high up on my list, because, in the words of Maslow, the hierarchy of needs isn't really a fixed hierarchy, and at an early age, I've always wanted to be self-actualized more than a dilettante.

On page 197, Berne quips:

For some people, of course, and at some levels with everyone, there is no illusion of autonomy, and the person is quite aware that his behavior is determined by what his parents told him at an early age. This is the case, for example, with many virgins and frigid women who state quite openly that they are so because that is how their parents told them to be.

My parents never told me to be chaste, but the way they lived their lives had transformed me into following into footsteps similar to theirs.

(I love my parents.)

Does that make me a loser?

Berne disagrees. On page 166, he differentiates a winner from a loser. 'A winner is a person who knows what he'll do next if he loses, but doesn't talk about it; a loser is one who doesn't know what he'll do if he loses, but talks about what he'll do if he wins.' He continues expounding on the idea on page 242, where he says: 'a winner is a person who sets out to do something he decides to do and gets it done if it's possible; if he doesn't get it right the first time, he gets it right the next time.'

My parents didn't only teach me chastity; they also taught me patience and foresight, and the importance of commitment and responsibility. I don't go chasing skirts or perfunctorily entering into relationships, because the misuse of sexuality could at worst, destroy three lives: it could destroy one's own; it could destroy another's whether that relation is heterosexual or homosexual; and it could destroy the product of that sexual union, which is an unwanted child. That's not something I want.

Berne doesn't only talk about sexual relationships and one's sexuality, however. He also bluntly answers questions regarding sexuality, and I found a few worth quoting:

QUESTION: But that's why we have a population explosion - because some people don't know that sex leads to impregnation. So isn't it necessary to discuss it with them?

ANSWER: I don't believe anybody is that stupid, really. (emphasis mine) ... It's not ignorance that keeps people from using contraceptives, and I don't believe it's poverty, either, because even if you give contraceptives away, people won't use them if they're not inclined to. (welcome to the Philippines!) So it's neither ignorance nor poverty, it's something else, something more deep-seated. Maybe poor benighted people want to be immortal, too.

He talks about sexual mores and its relation to mental illness on page 245:

Sexual mores in my experience have very little direct bearing on mental illness. Sexual conscience can get people upset, but that's an individual matter. As a matter of fact, the word 'mores' I think applies to very small societies such as villages, and is often misused, or at least, used to avoid finding out what's really going on, which is individual parental programming.

Berne finally ends his novel with certain funny and witty reflections. His best is probably this:

The best age for a bachelor is thirty-ninee. He is neither too old for the interesting young ones, nor too young for the interesting old ones. It may come as a surprise - an unwelcome or even distasteful one - to people under thirty to learn that some of the sexiest women are fifty. As anyone who reads a novel by an under-thirty can see, sex between people over forty is considered improper and in bad taste. But the over-forties know that the young are too cocky and forget that a mile run covers more ground than four 220-yard sprints. (p. 259)

I guess I have ten years to go? ;) Haha.

[Анатолій Волков · Rating 3 out of 5]

Автор більш відомий своїми працями «Ігри, в які грають люди» та «Люди, які грають в ігри». У цій книзі також значна частина присвячена типам ігор, у які грають люди. Загалом ця досить невелика книга (прочитана за 2 дні) являє собою курс лекцій про секс та його роль у житті людини. Багато уваги приділяється тому, наскільки секс впливає на здоров'я. Переважно автор перелічує, від яких хвороб буде корисний регулярний секс. Також у книзі багато уваги приділяється вихованню та ролі сексуального виховання. Звідки беруться людські архетипи, які ми переносимо з дитинства, тощо.
Загальне враження скоріше позитивне, хоча залишилося відчуття не так незавершеності, як фрагментарності історії. Тема явно не розкрита. І хотілося б більш детального та всебічного розгляду цього питання.
Загалом, з цієї історії мало що запам'яталося, крім того, що й так було відомо; можливо, книга дещо застаріла для нашого часу, а можливо, автор просто не достатньо глибоко підійшов до цього питання.

[Valter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, interesting, fun, sometimes debatable (hey, it was written half a century ago!), sometimes clearly dated.
Somebody could find it misogynistic but, hello again: it's from 50 years ago! Cut it some slack! ;-P

What pushed me to give it 3 stars instead of 4, it's exactly that sense of being (often) dated. The good Dr. is not wrong, most of the time, but sometimes he just feels a bit... "off", so to speak, when read in 2024 by someone quite knowledgeable on the subject (if I may say so myself ;-).

It's still an interesting and informative read, especially for a newbie, because most of it is still true and real; especially the parts about sex being essential to physical and emotional well-being (something that many people still struggle against nowadays! :-o ).

[أروى · Rating 1 out of 5]

مراجعة كتاب "الحب، الجنس، والحياة" – إريك بيرن
تقييم: 1/5

الكتاب أقل بكثير من المتوقع. يحاول يشرح مواضيع كبيرة زي الحب والجنس والحياة بنظرة تحليلية جامدة ما تلامس الواقع ولا تعبر عن تعقيد التجربة الإنسانية. الأسلوب نظري بزيادة، مليان مصطلحات وتحليلات تفصيلية ما تخدم الفكرة ولا توصل إحساس.

الطرح فيه نوع من التبسيط المخل، وكأنه يتعامل مع مشاعر الناس كأنها تجارب مخبرية، بدون عمق أو تعاطف. وفي بعض المقاطع، في نبرة تحكم أو تقليل من قيمة الانفعالات، كأن العاطفة شيء لازم يتفكك ويتبرمج.

الكتاب مشتت، ما فيه خط واضح، والتنقل بين المواضيع يخلي القارئ يتوه. حتى الأمثلة المستخدمة ما كانت مقنعة أو مرتبطة بحياة الناس فعليًا.

بشكل عام، تجربة قراءة ثقيلة ومحبطة. كان ممكن يكون أفضل لو قلّل التنظير وركّز على جوهر الفكرة، بس بالشكل الحالي؟ ما يستاهل الوقت.

[Vlad Scutelnicu · Rating 1 out of 5]

This books just shows the lack of understanding of sex in the past; both from a physical perspective ( and its pleasures) as well as from a psychological perspective. Since this book was written, the exploration of the sexual domain has evolved a lot. However, if you want to see just how much it evolved, 40-50 pages from this book will be sufficient.

[Hataipat · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not gonna say it's disappointed but when i skim through few pages i just couldn't force myself to read till the end. the first part was okay i was kinda expect to see something that intertwined with psy. well can't make it anyway so i am just gonna send it back to my uni library. duh

[Татьяна Моисеенко · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ця книга як продовження книг "ігри в які грають люди. Люди, які грають в ігри“. Але ігри сексуального характеру. Більше про негативні сценарії. Книга дуже маленька. Є цікаві моменти, але загалом враження не дуже позитивне.

[Roo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite its title this book is actually incredibly wholesome and somehow romantic. It's a fabulous balance between serious and tongue-in-cheek. Such an enjoyable read!

[Andrey Eremin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The books tells the part that is usually missing in any sex education the children have. It describes how things works not from the physical side, but rather from the psychological one.

[Eugenio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Очень глубоко и всесторонне. По форме скучновато, что не удивительно. Но всё же очень интересно. Особенно концепция удачника/малоудачника/неудачника.

[Natasha Galkina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Порой цинично, порой очень интересно

[Ginebra Lavao Lizcano · Rating 1 out of 5]

Was this ever serious? Out dated and misogynist.

[honeysucker_ · Rating 1 out of 5]

tahle kniha zestarla jak mliko

[Davids Bejers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't expect this book to make you better in bed, but it might. But it will help to know yourself and your partner. In general, I reviewed a lot of things and noticed much more details in my everyday life. Today, this book is a little outdated. The book was written in 1966. The book is written with humor, but this humor is from our parents' 70s.
Despite the slightly boomer humor, the book is good. Maybe it was better to read it 10 years ago, when I was 18-19 years old.

[Robin-Hood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fin dall'inizio, l'uomo fa quello che gli viene detto di fare. (...) E l'uomo è considerato libero, mentre in realtà è l'animale più condiscendente.
Certi animali possono essere addestrati a qualche esercizio, ma non addomesticati. Altri animali possono essere addomesticati e anche addestrati a fare qualche giochetto. Ma l'uomo viene addomesticato dall'inizio, e passa tutta la sua vita a fare dimostrazioni di destrezza per i suoi padroni: prima Papà e Mamma, poi l'insegnante, e dopo chiunque sappia soggiogarlo e fargli eseguire i suoi esercizi di
guerra, di rivoluzione o di pace. (...)
Fin dai primi mesi, al bambino viene insegnato non solo che cosa deve fare ma anche che cosa deve vedere, udire, toccare, pensare e sentire. Inoltre gli viene insegnato a essere un vincitore o uno sconfitto, e come la sua vita finirà. Tutte queste istruzioni sono programmate nella sua mente e nel suo cervello come se fossero delle schede perforate inserite in un computer. In seguito, quella che egli
considera la sua indipendenza o la sua autonomia è semplicemente la sua libertà di scegliere certe schede, ma in genere vi rimangono gli stessi fori fatti all'inizio. Certe persone ottengono un esaltante
senso di libertà dalla ribellione, che di solito significa una delle due cose: o essi estraggono un gruppo di schede perforate nella prima infanzia e non ancora usate, oppure rovesciano le schede e fanno il contrario di quanto esse ordinano. Spesso questo significa semplicemente seguire le istruzioni di una particolare scheda che dice: "A 18 (o a 40) anni usa questo nuovo gruppo di schede, o capovolgi le schede successive." Un altro tipo di rivolta segue le seguenti istruzioni: "A 18 (o a 40) anni elimina tutte le schede della serie A e lascia un vuoto." Questo vuoto deve essere riempito il più presto possibile con nuovi programmi subito pronti, che sono forniti dalle droghe o da un capo rivoluzionario.In ogni caso, ogni individuo finisce docilmente coll'avere all'età di cinque o sei anni - si, finisce a cinque o sei anni - uno "script" o un programma di vita in gran parte dettato dai suoi genitori. Questo programma gli dice come passerà la vita e come finirà, vincitore, non-vincitore, o sconfitto.
(...)
Gli "scripts" sono destinati a durare una vita intera. Essi si basano su ferme decisioni prese nell'infanzia e da una programmazione parentale che viene continuamente consolidata. Questo rafforzamento può assumere la forma di contatti quotidiani, come avviene cogli uomini che lavorano per loro padre o con le donne che ogni mattina telefonano alla madre per scambiare quattro chiacchiere, o può verificarsi meno di frequente e in modo più subdolo, ma altrettanto potente, mediante un'occasionale corrispondenza. Dopo la morte dei genitori, le loro istruzioni possono essere ricordate più intensamente
che mai. In base alla terminologia degli "scripts", uno sconfitto è detto ranocchio, e un vincitore principe o principessa. I genitori vogliono che i loro figli siano degli sconfitti o dei vincitori. Possono desiderare che siano "felici" nel ruolo che hanno scelto per loro, ma non vogliono che cambino fuorchè in casi speciali. Una madre che alleva una rana può volere che sua figlia sia una rana felice, ma si opporrà a tutti tentativi della figlia di diventare una principessa: "Ma chi ti sei messa in testa di essere?", perchè la madre stessa è stata programmata in modo da allevare la figlia come una rana. Un
padre che alleva un principe vuole che suo figlio sia felice, ma spesso preferirebbe vederlo infelice piuttosto che trasformato in un ranocchio "Ti abbiamo dato il meglio di tutto!". Un vincitore è, per definizione, una persona che rispetta il suo contratto verso il mondo e verso se stesso.

[Dmitry Tsvetkov · Rating 2 out of 5]

Outdated

[Hutanu Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Bărbații foarte sexuali sunt numiți (de unii) animale, când bărbații sunt prin natura lor mai sexuali decât animalele, iar un animal nesexual cu siguranță nu ar fi numit bărbat. Bărbații violenți sunt numiți animale de asemenea, însă animalele nu sunt vioente în cele mai multe cazuri, ci doar înfometate. Și omul este numit lber, când de fapt el este cel mai supus dintre toate animalele."

Interesantă carte, pentru a o înțelege pe deplin ar fi bine ca cititorul să cunoască noțiunile de bază din analiza tranzacțională.

[Adriano Pugno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Libro interessante sopratutto come approccio (leggero e immediato) all’analisi transazionale, ma risente molto degli anni passati (e da un ovvio punto di vista genuinamente maschilista), oltre che da alcune considerazioni biologiche nella fase introduttiva che spero siano assodate.