Mar 10, 2011

Freud was the real villain of men -- the father of the modern anti-man

Heterosexuality Is Unnatural, no matter what Sex Essentialists say

What follows is a book review from Achille's Heel: The Radical Men's Magazine

The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz

Twelve years ago, Gore Vidal asserted that "there is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo- or hetero acts." He repeats this hypothesis in an argumentative foreword to Ned Katz's book. But Katz seeks to dig deeper than this and questions the assumptions that lead us to divide people, acts, relationships and feelings into binary opposites. Starting with the first appearance in the United States of the word hetero-sexual, in 1893, he shows how it has moved from its original medical definition to its use in describing "normal", different-sex eroticism.

The original definition is important in the argument that Katz develops. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, attempts were made to identify and name various deviations from the procreative norm. "Hetero-sexuality" described one type of non-procreative perversion involving different-sex desire. Erotic attraction was seen as a healthy sexual instinct when procreation was its aim, but not if it involved only the satisfaction of lustful impulses. It was these drives and impulses that were taken up by Freud, from 1905 onwards, in the development of his theories of sexuality.

It is difficult to imagine a time before knowledge of the powerful concepts and images that Freud put before us. Katz shows how the presumption of a predominantly male, heterosexual norm pervaded Freud's writing, creating an assumption of the biological and historical roots of the hetero/homo divide. In a similar way, Freud displaced the procreative norm and replaced it with the concept of sexual libido and its satisfaction.

In terms of individual development, the choice of sexual object (same- or opposite-sex) was not fixed or restricted, but Freud made it clear that a heterosexual outcome would be both normal and preferred. Homosexuality is seen as "fixated" and "immature" and an undesirable developmental outcome. This impression of an essential, historical and biological truth focussed negative attention on abnormal homosexuality. More importantly, it directed attention away from the heterosexual norm. Katz invites us to check the relative invisibility of discourse on heterosexuality by browsing the indices of relevant seminal texts. As an example, he cites the standard index to Freud's complete works. This contains only one reference to heterosexuality but more than a column of references to homosexuality. Katz goes on to show how heterosexuality grew rapidly from a preferred developmental outcome into a universal, cultural norm. He places Gore Vidal's distinction between persons and acts as post-Kinsey in that Alfred Kinsey's research, reported in "Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male" (1948), described a range of behaviour and practice that did not fit neatly into exclusively homo- or heterocategories.

In the same decade, the words "gay" and "straight" were being used as descriptions of sexual identity, with "straight" meaning "not homosexual". The concept of a gay or lesbian identity and the growth of identity politics have been instrumental in affirming the feelings and lifestyles of those who are glad to be gay. Ned Katz recognises the importance of this movement, but is pessimistic about its potential in the breaking down of the heterosexual norm.

Acceptance of genetically-determined sexual orientation is compared with similar biological "evidence" used to justify the practices of slavery, racism and sexism. Rather than argue on these grounds, he sees a way forward, through a focus on what is held in common and not through an emphasis on what makes us different from each other. His model for this is based on challenges to the dominant male, heterosexual culture posed by liberal, radical and lesbian feminists since the early 1960s. Katz draws together the strands of a feminist de-construction of heterosexuality, from Betty Friedan's dissatisfaction with arbitrary sexual designations, placing limits on women's potential, to Adrienne Rich's explicit criticism, in the early 1980s, of institutionalised heterosexuality.

Katz looks forward to a time when homo- and hetero- distinctions will become redundant. As Lisa Duggan points out in her afterword, this is bound to make some readers uncomfortable, if not downright hostile.

Conservative "essentialists" will perceive an attack against the institutions of marriage and the family. On the other hand, those working for lesbian and gay rights may feel that their position is undermined and that it is better to argue for equality on the basis of gains already made. Katz and Duggan both suggest that an acceptance of "difference" can lead, at best, to a state of tolerance, whereas true equality can only come if we "change the notion that heterosexuality is normal for the vast majority of people, and shift social, cultural and political practices based on that assumption".

Ned Katz's main aim in this book is to focus attention and to encourage debate on the problem of heterosexuality. In this respect, he has produced a valuable resource. "The Invention of Heterosexuality" distils almost fifteen years of discussion, research and writing. It contains a wealth of notes and references that will provide an excellent platform for further study. But, above all, this is an essential read and a fascinating journey through the sexual politics of the 20th century.

Andrew Martin

Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective

Mar 8, 2011

Male Take: When He Can't Get An Erection

No erection? What to say when he can't get it up.

By Jack Murnighan

It happens to the best of men: arousal but no lift... interest but no erection. When a man can't get it up, the experience for him and his partner falls somewhere between awkward and utterly mortifying—I've even heard of men not calling women back because they were so ashamed of their inability to keep things on the up and up.
Because men are so sensitive about it, and because it's about as embarrassing a moment as he can experience, it puts the woman in a really tough spot. Of course you just want to say, "Honey, is there something I can do to help?" But in some cases, that's exactly what he doesn't want to hear. He's thinking, "No, I'm just dying from the pressure here, and the last thing I want you to do is even notice, much less try to help!"
Even worse is if you say, "Is there something wrong?" or "Are you okay?"—because, yes, there obviously is something wrong (you don't have to remind me!) and, no, I'm clearly not OK; I'm flaccid!
So what can a woman say or do when her man can't rev up the engines? Here are a few possibilities (but know that any one of these can backfire, too, depending on the circumstances). But, in order of most likely to go over well, here are five things you can say to help make the best of the situation:
1) Don't worry, honey. It happens to all guys.
Granted, he might wonder how much experience you have (some guys like to pretend it's your first time—I think they're silly), but at least he won't feel like he's the only loser on the planet. Misery sure does love company.
2) We'll just touch for now—I love that.
This way he can feel like he's still giving you a decent experience, and it's possible that gentle, relaxed, not-trying-to-start-anything touching will eventually bring him around. I'd advise steering clear of his penis, though, at least until it starts showing life on its own. If you touch it, he might think you're trying again, and his guilt and feelings of failure can get in the way.
3) You know what? It happens to me sometimes, too.
Guys might not realize that, sometimes, women don't get wet, even though they're aroused. Letting him know that it's a human thing, not just a flaw with his equipment, will help ease his mind.
Yes, this is pretty close to "Is there something I can do to help?" but the difference is in the approach. Asking what you can do implies there's a problem that needs fixing; asking if he wants something allows him to either articulate his needs or ignore your question. Still, this tactic is a bit risky, as he might feel as if you're disappointed with him. Sometimes, however, changing things up a little will put him in the right headspace and back on track. Just be careful when and how you ask.
Note that in all of these cases, the thing you need to make clear is that you're not mad at him, frustrated or mocking him for not being able to get an erection (or for having lost one).
And remember: You shouldn't take his present condition personally. Trust me, a guy can have performance anxiety simply because he likes you a ton and is trying too hard to make you happy! Or: he could have something else on his mind; some odd thing may have triggered his response; he may have had a lot to drink... any number of other things could be happening that have nothing to do with you or whether you're sexy. If it becomes chronic, there may be a more significant issue at work. But an isolated case or two—or jitters during the first few times you're together—is nothing to take as a bad sign. Male Take: How To Tell If A Guy Likes You
So once you have a handle on not taking it personally, help him realize that he shouldn't take it personally, either. He probably thinks his inability to maintain an erection reflects on his whole identity, so make sure he understands that you know it's a fluke, and no big deal.
Finally, keep in mind that men are a lot more complicated than they're given credit for. It might seem as if they're like light switches—easily turned on—but there's a brain involved, and that can be a wildcard. And when a man does have troubles, he really is at his most vulnerable. So careful what you say and do. He's ultra-exposed—in every way imaginable.