Tears after intimacy: a clinical and cultural perspective on postcoital dysphoria

This brief review calls attention to the fact that, “postcoital distress” is remarkably common. Here’s the Conclusion:

PCD challenges the widespread assumption that emotional distress after sex is rare or anecdotal. Recurrence in historical accounts, psychological theory, and modern empirical studies revealing notably high prevalence rates indicates that PCD is far more common than typically acknowledged. Despite its multifaceted biological, psychological, and relational origins, clinical practice continues to lack formal recognition of this phenomenon.
Integrating PCD into diagnostic and therapeutic frameworks is therefore crucial, not only to validate the experiences of many individuals who currently feel dismissed, but also to correct the mistaken view that postcoital emotional distress is exceptional rather than a frequent dimension of human sexual response.

Also, it’s refreshing to see researchers acknowledge this possibility:

Hormonal mechanisms and neurochemical shifts post-orgasm warrant further investigation, as abrupt hormonal changes in oxytocin, prolactin, and serotonin after orgasm may contribute to temporary mood shifts, comparable to postnatal depression.

IJIR: Your Sexual Medicine Journal – www.nature.com/ijir

Marwan Alkassis, Ervin Kocjancic and Omer A. Raheem, Int J Impot Res (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-026-01243-6

Abstract

Postcoital dysphoria (PCD) refers to the experience of inexplicable negative affect following consensual sexual intercourse or general sexual activity. Despite being relatively common, PCD is under-recognized in clinical practice and remains excluded from formal diagnostic classifications. This perspective synthesizes findings from empirical research and theoretical perspectives to explore the psychological, relational, and neurobiological foundations of PCD. It also situates the phenomenon within mythological and historical contexts, arguing for a comprehensive understanding that encompasses both pathological and existential interpretations. We highlight key research gaps and propose directions for clinical integration and future inquiry.