Religious Chastity Belts and Freudian Pathology

Overcoming the Pathology of Female Sexuality Throughout history there have been many factors which have worked towards creating a definition of female sexuality, and most of these factors while attempting to define the elusive nature of female sexuality, have inadvertently, and at times knowingly, pathologized the sexual desires of women. It would be impossible to broach all of the historical evidence of pathology in definitions of female sexuality; however, it is possible to examine the effects of two such extreme factions, which have both helped to distort the definitions of normal sexuality in women. 20th century ideologies concerning the nature of women and sexuality have been predicated upon the historical doctrines of Christian morality, which determine a woman’s virtue by a strict adherence to chastity, and the sexual theories of Freud who created the female obsession with the penis. So how can women find “normal” in the 21st century after years of pathology and perversion? Are we forever bound to chastity by the mandates of religion? Or should we remain content to be reduced to sexually perverse and inadequate by Freud’s methodology? It is my belief that “normal” female sexuality lies somewhere between the lines of obsessive chastity and pathological perversity. There is room in this culture for women who enjoy their sexuality, and in turn enjoy sexual activity. It is time that we created a new definition of open female sexuality without reverting to labels of immorality based upon Christian ethics, or pathology established by the edicts of Freudian theory. Christian religious discourse has become one of the most widely accepted and followed doctrines of morality, stretching from ancient Rome to 21st century culture, and it is through the very phallic nature of the cross that the first mandates of feminine chastity arose. Christianity has likened the sexual expression of women to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Women are the temptresses, and all of our sexual inclinations outside of those used for procreative purposes should be suppressed in order to protect mankind. Andrea Dworkin, in a harsh criticism of male domination gives an extremist account of the Christian views of women and sexuality, she states: “Women are dirty, inclined to evil, not fit for the responsibilities of religious or civil citizenship, should be seen and not heard, are destined, or predestined as it were, for sexual use and reproduction and have no other value. Also… the sexuality of women is seen as intrinsically seductive and sluttish, by its nature a provocation to which men respond” (Dworkin 237). It quickly becomes apparent that the only form of sex accepted by Christianity is that which results in the birth of a child. Religious institutions have used passages from the bible, such as “Whatever you do, do all to the Glory of God” (I Cor. 10:31), “Be fruitful and Multiply (Gen. 1:28; 9:1), and “Children are a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3) to support this supposition. Despite the acceptance of sexual intercourse in marital relations for the sole purpose of procreation, there is still a heavy emphasis placed upon the determination of a woman’s virtue based upon chastity. In most religious discourse, it is the common belief that “the body is most sacred when it is forgotten” (Cabot 23). Based upon Andrea Dworkin’s statements, which recount the Christian belief that the female form is a great danger to mankind due to its ability to seduce, religious institutions find chastity in women to be of grave importance. This mandate of feminine chastity is most clearly expressed by the worship of the Virgin Mary as the most renowned female religious figure throughout history. In her state of constant chastity, she became a figurehead, a cornerstone of a faith, and an example for all women to strive to match. Not only is chastity in women vital to the church because female sexuality is the embodiment of temptation, but it is believed in most religious institutions that humankind must exist in a state of perpetual dissatisfaction. Christianity teaches that we should not give in to our sexual impulses and desires because they are merely a manifestation of the longing for God, and this desire cannot be fulfilled by any earthly pleasure. C. J. Vliet in an extremist argument about the temptation of sex stated: “At the time of death only the physical body is cast off and actually dies, while the body-discarding human entity proceeds into another, a not-physical world; that in that other world there is no propagation of the race; no birth of children – hence, no procreation; no earthly use for sex -- -- therefore: no sex; that individual conditions of existence after death depend entirely on what one’s behavior, yearning, and way of thinking have been while still in the physical body; that sensual cravings, fostered during life in the body, become a scorching plague, when after death, without a physical body, they cannot be satisfied” (Vliet 65-66). St. Augustine stated that “Thou madest us for Thyself, and our soul is restless until is shall repose in thee” (Augustine). Christian morality has reduced female sexuality to something sinful and that, which must be suppressed, and this ideal has permeated historical culture and has carried over into the ideologies of the 21st century. While Christian doctrines mandated chastity in women, “Freud’s achievement was the rediscovery of sexuality” (Firestone 49), however, as a part of this rediscovery, the theories and propositions of Freud suggest what have become the greatest aspects of pathology in female sexuality. His theory of penis envy with its implication that all women are obsessed with the phallus, along with his suggestion that the female sexual organs are immature have worked to create a type of perverseness surrounding the sexual activities of women. He openly suggests that women are susceptible to perversion, and states “Under ordinary conditions, she may remain normal sexually, but if she is led on by a clever seducer she will find every sort of perversion to her taste and will retain them as part of her own sexual activities” (Freud 69). According to Freud, it is impossible for women to obtain any form of normative sexuality; she either retains the perversions of her lovers, or stubbornly clings to the phallic obsessions pervasive during childhood. Not only does Freud pathologize female sexuality, but he also suggests that the mechanisms of clitoral arousal in women are immature, until these desires are “properly” transferred to vaginal stimulation. “When erotogenic susceptibility to stimulation has been successfully transferred by a woman from the clitoris to the vaginal orifice, it implies that she has adopted a new leading zone for the purposes of her later sexual activity” (Freud 99). This statement and its implications return to the mandates of Christianity. Freud suggests here that the only form of acceptable female sexuality is that which results in procreation, hence his disapproval of clitoral stimulation, which does not result in the birth of a child. Although some might suggest that Freud took a step forward by re-introducing sexuality to a culture that had suppressed it, in truth he only reinforced Christian doctrines of chastity, and combined them with pathology and perversity. So where does this leave female sexuality in the 20th and 21st centuries? Unfortunately, we are not very far beyond our historical counterparts. Religion, although not as openly, still believes that chastity is vital for women, and that our virtue is still determined by adherence to chastity until marriage, when procreation away from sin is possible. Karen Lebacqz best describes this view in her essay on the ethics of sexuality for singles. She describes the views of the church and the views of those who follow the church doctrines. She says: “The ‘Old Testament’ or legalistic approach to single sexuality is best summed up in a delightful limerick by Joseph Fletcher: There was a young lady named Wilde/ Who kept herself quite undefiled/ by thinking of Jesus/ and social diseases/ and the fear of having a child. The ‘thou shalt not’ ethic was characterized by fear – fear of pregnancy and venereal disease – and by a series of ‘don’ts’: don’t have sex, don’t take pleasure in it (at least not if you’re a woman), and don’t talk about it” (Lebacqz 130). In the present, where pre-marital sex is prevalent, more attention should be paid to the responsibilities of those engaging in the acts, rather than condemnation of its participants. Women should not be condemned for sexual activity that does not result in the birth of a child, but rather, a new doctrine must be formulated to make room for the sexually active single woman. These women are not the temptresses of historical fascination, nor should women who engage in sex for pleasure be tagged with a label, which equates them with the serpent found in the Garden of Eden. While the church condemns women for sex without procreation, they are disregarding one of the most important edicts within the bible. Sex is a gift from God, and there is more than one quality born from this gift. The church believes that procreation is the only redeeming quality born of sexual activity, but they are leaving out the fact that the union between man and woman is also an aspect of sexual activity supported by the bible. “Let us begin with Christian tradition, which affirms that sex is a gift from God. It is to be used within the boundaries of God’s purposes. As part of God’s creation, sex is good. Like all creation, however, it is tainted by the fall, and therefore becomes distorted in human history” (Lebacqz 131). It is important to understand this mandate when attempting to reconcile historical Christian beliefs with the sexually active woman of the 21st century. It is very possible to create a new doctrine of feminine sexuality in direct coalition with the teachings of the church, but it falls upon religious institutions to understand that women are not the basis of sin, nor is sexuality. But reconciliation with the Christian mandate of female chastity is not the only obstacle to overcome when creating a new definition of sexuality for women. Freud’s theories of obsession, perversion, and inferiority, which have pathologized sexually active women since the age of the Victorians, must also be re-evaluated and eventually discarded. Sexually active women are not acting out of a need to replace the penis, which they have symbolically lost by being born of the female sex, and Freud was terribly misguided when he made this suggestion. Not only have women been forced to overcome the stigmas associated with religion, but ever since the advent of Freudian theory, and the re-introduction of sexuality into culture, women have been forced to contend with the theory of phallic obsession, creating the new ideology of the slut. That women are only interested in obtaining a phallus, and that once a woman has obtained her “goal” she will do anything in her power to retain it, resulting in a desire to only provide pleasure for her male counterpart is blatantly wrong. Unfortunately, “written accounts of sexuality were dominated by a few genres – medical/scientific and confessional/pornographic” (Pellauer 13), and these accounts, especially those of a pornographic nature, have embraced the theories of Dr. Freud in an attempt to quantify female sexuality as merely the physical expression of a phallic obsession. But Freud’s penis envy theory is not his only misguided assumption. The inadequacy and immaturity of clitoral stimulation is also wrong, as later proven by the work of Masters and Johnson. Mary D. Pellauer broached this incorrect and misogynistic viewpoint in her essay concerning the significance of female arousal and orgasm. She states: “Earlier in this century, women who did not have vaginal orgasms were called frigid. By now almost everyone knows about the errors of the Freudian school, with its misbegotten notions of the women who had not made a successful transfer of sexual energies from the clitoris (childish) to the vagina (mature). Though the Kinsey team was critical of this understanding and emphatic about the need for more empirical data, it was the work of Masters and Johnson in their laboratories, and the many women who volunteered there, that corrected basic errors of this interpretation” (Pellauer 12). Although Pellauer is optimistic about what information people are privy to, she has underestimated the amount of people who still embrace Freudian theory in the 21st century. Even though “Masters and Johnson found that women do not appear to have a refractory period and that with effective stimulation are capable of experiencing one or more additional orgasms following the first without any loss of sexual arousal” (Hock 163), the Freudian suggestion of female sexual inferiority is still running rampant throughout the general populace. So where does this leave us now? Should feminism curl up and admit defeat? Of course not, it is entirely possible to combat Freud’s theories by informing the general public about female sexually without referring to pathology and perversity. The first step in coming to terms with the openly sexual female in the 21st century is acknowledging sex as a normal aspect of life. Dr. David Reuben, acclaimed author of Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (But were afraid to ask), admires the paradoxical situation of present day culture’s current sexual ideology. He says: “Most of us are in the uncomfortable position of knowing more about what occurs 238,000 miles away on the surface of the moon than what happens six inches below our own navels” (Altman, 116). This is the basis of sexual dysfunction and misinformation. The simple fact that human kind understands very little about their sexual desires, other than the obsessive need to suppress them in accordance to a moral Christian code, is the first obstacle to overcome. People are more inclined to accept what they understand, and in the past, only sin and pathology explained the “mystery” of female sexuality. Despite the fact that these theories have since been proven incorrect, people cling to their mandates in order to categorize the openly sexual female. But as stated earlier, these theories are outdated, and need to be replaced. Female sexuality is not about pathology, but so far, it has been almost impossible to determine a normal definition of the elusive subject. What must be understood first and foremost is the impossibility of lumping female sexuality into one distinct category of “normal” or “dysfunctional.” Every woman is different. She has different likes and dislikes, and will have problems that are not always based on a psychoanalytic trauma. Just as “there are no recipes for love-making” (Pellauer 15), there can never be a single definition of normal female sexuality. Rather, what must be understood is that sex for women is not about pathology. It is about intimacy, and sharing yourself with another person. Perhaps the only definition of normal female sexuality can be found in the simple fact that there are no definitions available. Female sexuality should be embraced, rather than scorned and pathologized, and by casting off the chains of historicism, there will finally be an understanding of female sexuality acceptable to all.

Return to the MAIN PAGE