A Sociological Sexuality Model

The paper starts by listing the critiques for popular human sexuality theories. Freud's theory is rejected for being too psychological in approach and being centered a specific time and place (early 20th century Vienna), Marxist perspectives do not follow because gender roles are not influenced exclusively by the mode of production, and sociobiological discoveries fail to account for cross-cultural differences noted by anthropologists (Reiss, 233). His view emphasizes comparative sociology and connections to cultural anthropology.

http://modernpsychologist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Sociobiology-Times.jpg

Having rejected there theoretical perspectives, the author constructs his own human sexuality model. His approach is at the macro-level, looking for patterns in aggregates, as micro-level interactions may contaminate the data since it wouldn't provide clear distinctions between separate categories (Reiss, 234). He then defines sex, gender role and sexuality as follows: sex is the genetic sex, gender role is what theorists referred to incorrectly as sex role-learned social behaviors, and sexuality is composed of "those cultural scripts aimed at erotic arousal that produce genitalia responses" (Reiss, 234). Furthermore, the process is not innate, but learned behavior (Reiss, 234).

Sexuality is important is all cultures as a process of human interactions; societies will either encourage or restrict it (Reiss, 235). However, the author does not think reproduction has a significant role in this cross-cultural interest in sexuality. Looking at nonindustrial cultures, he noted that becoming pregnant is not the center of sexuality, but rather the effect of a particular type of sexual interaction, "repetitive coitus with one's marriage partner", and raising children is a collective activity, not the independent responsibility of one woman (Reiss, 235).

http://en.slovoidilo.ua/uploads/news/7a941704bd72667a788eab044cbe4b24.png

Next, Reiss looks at ideology as the fundamental general perspective, "our ideological beliefs [...] promote our popular perspectives on sexual normality" (Reiss, 237). Opinion polls from the era suggest that women were much more in favor of economic, political, religious and social equality, but were not as accepting of equal sexual rights (Reiss, 237). On the other hand, men were accepting sexual equality, but were reluctant to embrace overall gender equality.

Reiss talks about the male premature ejaculation again. This time he compares it to the fact that a woman being able to achieve orgasms in a short amount of time is praised for being responsive and her orgasm can help her male partner feel like an adequate lover (Reiss, 238).

Reference:
Ira L. Reiss, "A Sociological Journey into Sexuality" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 48, No. 2 (pp. 233-242) , May, 1986

History of Orgasm: Part 4: Vibrator Technology

              I’m continuing my review and summary of Rachel P. Maines’ book, The Technology of Orgasm, for parts 1, 2, and 3 click here:
http://femgasmproject.blogspot.com/2014/11/history-of-technology-and-female-orgasm.html
http://femgasmproject.blogspot.com/2014/11/history-of-orgasm-part-2-hysteria.html
http://femgasmproject.blogspot.com/2014/11/history-of-orgasm-part-3-masturbation.html

This section, like the last one, was unfortunately rather disorganized and very repetitive- much of what was discussed in this section was discussed already in the first one. What’s so strange about this book, is that it’s a pretty short book for such a large topic, so you would think that each fact would only be said once in order to effectively use what little space she has, but instead it seems that the book could have been cut by about a third, and nothing substantive would have been lost. But there is some interesting information here about hydrotherapy, the beginnings of vibrator use by doctors, and the beginning of the use of vibrators in the home.

Hydrotherapy

Apparently an entire journal was devoted to the topic. 

     Bathing has always been associated with sensuality in Western culture, even dating as far back to the baths of Greece and Rome (72). Sick or not, throughout history, wealthy women especially visited “healing” mineral springs, and in the 1830s and 1840s hydrotherapy or “the water cure”, was a major medical fad (73). And of course, it’s use continued well into the second half of the nineteenth century (78). The “water cure”, a bit more aggressive than women simply laying in baths, involved pumping water into the vagina- apparently for any “female complaints”. (74). (I’ve discussed why responding to women’s  problems by “treating” the vagina is not exactly as wonderful as we might try to make it, in far harsher words, in other sections.) Apparently, most women did respond to hydrotherapy, according to Maines, with great enthusiasm, enjoying it immensely, which greatly confused doctors (74).  That women enjoyed these treatments even seemed to upset some doctors, who struggled for an explanation,  with some Freudians, even into the late 20^th century, suggesting that women orgasm from water simulation, because it allows them to pretend to be man, who is capable or urinating and ejaculating like a man (81). She notes that while masturbation with water was once common for women, and has been shown to especially pleasurable for many of us, studies in the 1990s showed that only 2% of women then used water at all, through shower heads or other means. It’s use has actually declined.

Vibrators

Moving out of the doctor's office and into the home. 

    Vibrators were first “medically” used (to treat “hysteria”), in 1878,  in Paris,  and most doctors were happy to switch over to them, due to their dislike of manual stimulation (68, 93). By 1900, dozens of models were available (93). They were, like hydrotherapy, used to treat all problems a women might have, much, I’m sure, to the detriment of many women whose problems stemmed from somewhere other than their vaginas, although Maines doesn’t discuss this (95). Doctors had a hard time, as discussed in previous sections, maintaining their reputation as professionals when it came to vibrators, as everyone from Freud to erotic movies to popular film, was discussing and depicting vibrators as inherently sexual, never mind that they were beginning to be sold to the average consumer (95, 100, 108). By 1908, they were on the shelves, although often with warnings to avoid “excessive use”, or “imprudence”, while at the same time, promoted as being “far superior to the human hand” (103). As we learned in previous sections, eventually this acknowledgement of women’s sexuality and the sexual nature of these “treatments”, stopped the use of the vibrator in medical offices. Soon enough, vibrators were seen as “self-treatment”, as ways for women to take their sexual pleasure into their own hands. (108). 

Summary: Gerhard on Koedt's Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm

 In her article, “Revisiting ‘The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm’: The Female Orgasm in American Sexual Thought and Second-Wave Feminism” published in 2000 in vol. 26 of Feminist Studies, Jane Gerhard, PhD, describes the trends, conversations, and  controversies amongdoctors, psychologists, and feminists in 20^th century America, surrounding women’s orgasms.  The titular ‘Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm’ was a 1968 treatise written by Anne Koedt and published by New York Radical Women (449). An instant success, it argued against the common assertion that women received intercourse exclusively through intercourse, and explored women’s sexuality. In Gerhard’s article, she places this piece in its historical context.

Book by Anne Koedt.

        In her first section, “Woman as Vaginal”, she discusses the beliefs about the orgasm that existed in the first half of the 20^th century. At this time, a “companion marriage” where a heterosexual couple would love and care for one another, and have sex, was considered the proper and “normal” thing to do (451). It was agreed upon, amongst psychologists and sexologists, that intercourse was normal for women, but most strongly discouraged clitoral stimulation, warning that it would lead women to reject intercourse, and begin masturbating (452). As discussed in my other posts, Freud associated the clitoris with immaturity, and the vagina with maturity in women (452). In the 30s, 40s, and 50s America, his beliefs were solidified, and his followers placed an emphasis on this that even he did not- in those decades, sexologists strongly emphasized that naturalness of intercourse and heterosexuality, and the “masculine” and “immature” nature of the clitoris (454).  

        His student, Helene Deutsch, especially argued that female sexuality was rooted in the vagina, and that a normal, proper woman neither had sex too much or too little, and was subordinate, passive, dependent, and maternal- a female sexuality rooted in the clitoris, she argued, is associated with improper sexuality and improper femininity in general (455-457). A woman, she argued, could adapt to any sexual practice, and enjoy it- even rape (456). Certainly, no effort should be made to please her.  Hischmann and Berger agreed, connecting vaginal orgasm not only to proper femininity, but heterosexuality as well (459). Thus, when Koedt and other feminists attacked the “vaginal orgasm”, they were arguing against not only the idea that orgasms in women were mostly vaginal, but also the expectations for femininity associated with them.

Helene Deutsch.

    Her second section, “Clitoral Visions”, examines sexual thought, as it pertains to women, from 1953-1966. Kinsey, Masters, and Johnson all challenged the existence of vaginal orgasm, and argued for an understanding of sexuality that was based in pleasure, not reproduction- and thus, they focused on clitoral orgasm (460). They discovered that vaginal intercourse was not what was most pleasurable for most women, and that in fact, women behave sexually like men, and enjoy clitoral simulation (461-462). Both feminists and sex revolutionaries found these findings useful, but feminists also criticized the sexologists for being focused solely on the body, not on psychological responses, and being unconcerned with politics, and both criticized their maintenance of the status quo, as Kinsey, Masters, and Johnson  were mostly concerned with improving marital sex.  (461, 463).

     Her third section, “The Politics of Sexual Freedom”, explores sexual thought from 1968-1973, which is the era in which Koedt wrote her text. Like the sexologists from the earlier period, most sex revolutionaries emphasized the bodily (464). Much to the frustration of feminists, and women in general, the “radical” men of this period, looked at sex in an entirely ungendered way, and put forth an idea of freedom that only amounted to , “I have the right to have sex with women whenever I want, and they have the right to have sex with men whenever they want.” (465). There was little to no advocacy for  the social or political freedom that was badly needed for women to truly have a liberated sexuality, and women were subjected to sexism, objectification, and assault in the pursuit of this particular kind of sexual “freedom” (465, 468).  Black women, and other women of color, were especially subjected to sexual exploitation and violence, and they found that many white feminists  instead of working with them, were unwilling to examine these consequences of racism (471).

            Feminists in this period, including Koedt, were part of a productive dialogue, in which “a range of perspectives” were put forward. They agreed on little, but the conversation had not yet transformed into the divisive Sex Wars of the 1980s (450). Agreed upon goals were to emphasize the importance of the clitoris, see women’s sexuality as “female sexuality”, not heterosexual or homosexual sexuality, and to criticize the two main constructions of women’s sexuality in a way that would allow for the development of  women's sexual empowerment and agency (451). These two constructions were the original construction of sexuality, advanced by Freud and still present, which approved only of sexually passive women, and the modern construction of sexuality, advanced by the sexual revolutionaries, that defined women primarily by her sexuality, and expected women to be sexual only with men (451).  Many of these ideas were originally Koedt’s, or formed with her help, and all are highlighted in the treatise.

    Koedt, in her text, emphasizes that these constructions of female sexuality resulted in women experiencing feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and shame, and were constantly receiving messages how they should be behaving, sexually, everywhere, and especially from the therapists who they turned to for help (459). She advanced the idea that if women were unhappy with their sex lives, it was not because of anything they were doing or not doing, but because of sexism, homophobia, and mandatory heterosexuality (466). She wanted women to be able to “full sexual agents” who could be responsible for their own sexual pleasure, and she believed that the clitoris was integral here, because anyone, the woman herself, or a partner of any gender, could pleasure her via the clitoris (466-467). Feminists in general, in this period emphasized intimacy, love, psychological pleasure, and lesbianism and bisexuality, as important components of women’s sexuality (469-471).

    Overall, I was really impressed by this article, which I found through, helpful, and attentive to many other women’s experiences- unlike in other articles, queer women and women of color are not ignored, although more attention to Black women’s criticism of not only “radical” men, but white feminists as well, would have been good, and I am also interested in how trans women figured into all of this. But as a whole, the argue provided a good, cursory overview of the period that incorporated multiple views and experiences.

    

History of Orgasm: Part 2: "Hysteria"

   (To see Part 1 of this series, click here: http://femgasmproject.blogspot.com/2014/11/history-of-technology-and-female-orgasm.html)

 In this post, I'll be continuing my review and summary of Rachel P. Maines' monograph entitled, The Technology of Orgams: "Hysteria", the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction, this time focusing on the second section of her book, which is concerned with "hysteria" in relation to orgasm.
(Or, as Maines describes it, the pathologization of women's sexuality.)  I will begin with a summary of Maines research, and then suggest some  complications.

Book cover. 

       Stressing that doctors and psychologists' definitions and understandings of "hysteria", and the best cures for it, have varied over time, Maines divides her section into four chronological sections- Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the "Freudian era".  Despite these changes however, some behaviors or symptoms that resulted in a "hysteria" diagnosis for women, that appear to be quite constant, include: fainting, anxiety, insomnia, and behavior deemed inappropriate, or unacceptable, although what was defined as "inappropriate" varied.
Antiquity and the Middle Ages
   The symptoms doctors were most concerned with in this period were fainting, anxiety, insomnia, muscle spasms, shortness of breath, loss of appetite, lack of interest in having sex with an "appropriate male partner", and/or "causing trouble for others".  (23). These symptoms, when they manifested in women (and only when they manifested in women), were assumed to be the result of the woman not getting enough "good sex", and/or that the vagina or uterus was malfunctioning, or even "suffocating" the woman ( 23-24). Doctors believed that "fluids" needed to let out of the vagina, and it was observed that women became quite wet indeed during genital massage, so that was what often was prescribed- masturbation of course, was forbidden, and husbands and midwives were expected to do the "massaging" ( 23-25). Occasionally, vaginal suppositories, which were said to be irritating, were inserted instead ( 24).  As discussed in the last section, it was not understood that "fluid releasing" was part of female sexual stimulation or orgasm.
Renaissance
   In this era, doctors continued to believe that "fluid" needed to be released, and that midwives and husband  should do the "releasing", and not the woman herself (27). However, it was emphasized during this period, that young "hysterics" (still all women) needed to marry in order to be cured, and married "hysterics" would be cured through penetrative sex with their husbands (, 27). Any other curative method was a last resort.
18th and 19th Centuries
The 18th and 19th centuries were marked by a greater variety of theories. Many doctors believed that "hysteria" was caused directly by sexual deprivation, others believed it was caused by masturbation, and still others believed that it did not actually exist at all, and that women were faking their symptoms in order to get attention (32, 42). This was also a period in which, for the first time, a few (although not the majority) actually believed that men could also be "hysterical", although they were referred to as "hypochondriacs", which doesn't mean what it means today- it simply means a man who was sexually deprived to the point of apparent illness (32).
Especially for doctors who believed that masturbation was the cause, marriage was still the the popular prescribed cure ( 32). If this was not possible, horseback riding and "genital massage" (still not by the woman herself), was suggested instead. (32).  "Hysterics" received little to no sympathy, and were regarded as failures to their husbands ( 39).
Sometimes, during these massages, of their genitalia, breasts, or even torsos, women would laugh or scream- other times, they would sob (34).

Freudian Era
As discussed in the first section of her book, Freud's understanding of these treatments as sexual largely put an end to them. While initially a believer in hydrotherapy (for which women paid unbelievable amounts of money for each year) and even electrotherapy for "hysterics",  of course, eventually Freud came to believe that "hysteria" was the result not of sex deprivation, but due to "imagined" childhood trauma (44).  He believed that "hysterics", like his other patients, could be cured through talking with him about it (the "talking cure"), which is, of course, more or less what standard therapy is today (44).

A critique I have of this section, is that Maines' seems to be taking it for granted that these women were sexually deprived (and that this deprivation was the cause of their symptoms), and that these attempts at curing them were helpful, wanted, and non-traumatic, and I don't see any evidence for this.
I think, most likely, given that we've learned that half of less women experience orgasm through the kind of sex Maines calls 'androcentric" (penetration solely), and little was known about women's sexuality and few believed she had a right to it in Christian society, few women were sexually satisfied in this period. But I don't know that it follows that the sexual deprivation would cause things like "causing trouble for others", or losing your appetite, or being anxious, or not sleeping. To me, it seems like what is happening here, is that women who exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior, or really, an inappropriate behavior, were being pathologized and told that their vaginas were making them sick- and they could only be cured through marriage, which is, conveniently, what society and their parents wanted for them also.

Anna O./Bertha Pappenheim, 

What I also think is happening (or, know is happening from other sources) is that women who were suffering from depression were not taken seriously, and instead were  diagnosed as "hysterics"- there are many cases, such as the more famous "Anna O" and "Dora" cases, in which women who would now see as depressed, or even survivors of sexual assault, were dismissed by Freud and his colleagues as deceptive "hysterics", and denied proper treatment based on that diagnosis.
(Darcy Buerkle discusses these cases, and the general lack of seriousness afforded to women's despair in the "Freudian age" in her book, Nothing Happened: Charlotte Salomon and an Archive of Suicide)
I also don't think it should be ignored that for many girls and women, who were likely pressured into these treatments, or outright forced by parents or others, some of these very early, physically intimate treatments, while they might have resulted in orgasm, were likely also  traumatic.

History of Technology and the Female Orgasm: Part 1

           This week, I read the first section- entitled “A Job Nobody Wanted”, with the “job” being bringing women to orgasm- of technology historian Rachel Maines’ oft-cited monograph, The Technology of Orgasm: ‘Hysteria’, Vibrators, and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction. In this section, she discusses how ‘hysteria’ was defined, how doctors attempted to ‘treat’ it, and how these methods of ‘treatment’ were considered moral and acceptable in the nineteenth century, and how they fell out of favor.

          Though she begins with a discussion of treatment, in the interests of clarity and organization, I’ll first briefly summarize how she defined “hysteria”, which was estimated, at the time, to inflict approximately 75% of women in early modern England and America (5).  The symptoms were vague, and according to Maines, also general symptoms of “chronic arousal”: “anxiety, sleeplessness, irritability, nervousness, erotic fantasy, sensation of heaviness in the abdomen, lower pelvic edema, and vaginal lubrication”. (8). She is careful to emphasize that, with symptoms this vague, the women diagnosed with “hysteria”, were not necessarily sexually deprived, and could have been diagnosed as "hysterical" for any number of reasons, which I think is an important point, that I hope she will delve into in greater detail as the book goes on. (How many depressed, even suicidal, women, or women legitimately anguished over their political or social situation, or women with other medical or psychological problems, were simply called ‘hysterical’ and shoved out of the view?)  Maines asserts, despite this, that the high percentage of women who could be classified as ‘hysterical’ in the early modern period, is the result of the unsatisfying nature of sex for women, and the forbidding of masturbation (5). (Due to the many reasons a woman could be diagnosed with “hysteria”, given that women and women’s despair and anxiety were not taken seriously in general, I’m not sure this can actually be substantiated.)

         In the pre-Freudian era, doctors assumed this resulted, not because of despair or sexual desire, but because the apparently inflamed and disconnected uterus was literally suffocating the woman,  and needed to be brought back into its proper place (8). In contrast, psychologists the Freudian era actually projected sexual desires onto women, believing that the latent cause of their “hysteria” were childhood experiences, which caused an “arrested” or “juvenile” female sexuality (9). “Real” (truly mature, adult) women should, according to Freud, be able to achieve orgasm through penetration, despite the fact that we now know that only 50-70% percent of women can (5, 9).  She reminds us that, at least until the 1970s, doctors regularly promised men whose wives or girlfriends did not orgasm, that it was nothing they did, but that instead, it was the woman who was “flawed” or had something physically wrong, instead of suggesting that, perhaps, she just simply couldn’t be pleased via penetration alone (6).
  

                                                  Sigmund Freud, biography.com. 
 It was Freud’s understanding that “hysteria” and its treatments were sexual in nature  (perhaps accidental, since those of us who have read Freud, know that there was little he did not consider sexual),  that helped to end the traditional discussion and treatment of the “disease”, according to Maines. (10). Prior to that, doctors and psychologists did not understand “hysteria” as sexual, and they were able to insist that their treatments were similarly clinical.  Instead, they viewed it as women’s desperate need for child- a desire for a baby, not sexual release (8). This belief- the “androcentric model of sexuality” as Maines defines it- only recognized as sexual an act in which penetration was involved, and the man orgasmed (5). Anything else, was not considered sexual at all, which allowed doctors to get away with doing quite a lot to women, given that they didn’t even recognize that the orgasms that were produced as a result of their treatments were even orgasms.
 19th century "vibrator", from rendip.com. 

     Some of the treatments she discussed, prior to the invention of the vibrator, include “vaginal massage” with “one finger in the vagina” by midwives, or very reluctant doctors or husbands, who were desperate for any other treatment given the time (a full ten minutes!)  and skill “vaginal massage with one finger in the vagina” took, and turned to swings and vigorous horseback and carriage riding to try to give women “release”, and push her uterus back into place, so it would stop “suffocating” the woman (1, 8). Masturbation was not suggested (7).  Thus, as she argues, pleasuring women was a “job nobody wanted”. A “mechanical device”- what became the vibrator- was invented not because it was more helpful to woman, but because it allowed doctors to get the “job” done and send the women on their way quickly, and without needing to develop any skills (1, 11). For a great deal of money, women diagnosed with hysteria, up until the 1920s when erotic films depicting early vibrators appeared- making it undeniable that this was sexual-could go to a doctor to be subjected to vaginal hydrotherapy or a few minutes with a vibrator (10-13). Of course, she had to be observed as to not “over indulge” (15). 

       She ends this section with the note that after they were exposed as sexual, vibrators disappeared from view until the 1960s, when they began to be advertised as the masturbation aids for women that we see them as today (20). She suggests, then, that women inherited “the job that nobody wanted”. (20). It’s an interesting idea- that instead of men developing the skills to learn to please women, women instead sort of “gave up” and decided to do the job themselves, via vibrator, an object invented not because women enjoyed it more than manual masturbation, but because it took less time and effort. Most women I know who masturbate use a vibrator, and not their own hands.  Is it because we prefer the efficiency of the vibrator, or the feel of it, or because we don’t enough experience with our bodies (and don’t want, or are not able, to gain that experience) to successfully please ourselves without it?  These are questions that I think should be discussed- not in an academic work, necessarily, but with each other. 

            Vibrator advertisement, probably from the 1960s, from bytesdaily.blogspot.com. 

   Another question that I hope Maines discusses, is the extent to which orgasm should actually be viewed as the paramount of women’s sexual pleasure- is the orgasm actually the most important thing- the end-all-be-all of a sexual encounter- or do we just think it is, because that’s how men have historically treated it as? Is the emphasis on the orgasm at the exclusion of all else also an ‘androcentric model of sexuality”? I also hope that later chapters acknowledge the existence of women who are not straight or cis, because that has not happened so far. She does acknowledge that the unfortunate reality is that few lower class women, or women of color, could have afforded medical care for “hysteria” or kept records of their sexuality in general, so the information she has really only applies to wealthy white women in England and America, and she is careful not to generalize, or to assume that her findings reflect the experiences of all women everywhere (10). This is too bad (although very understandable, given the sources available), as I would be interested in knowing what the differences in sexual expectations and experiences were between the women of the bourgeoisie and the working classes.