Heterosexuality was invented in 1863

... but homosexuality was invented first

In 1863 the term “homosexuality” was invented by the Austrian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny, who later the same year invented the term “heterosexuality”. A few years later, in 1863, the doctor and scientist Richard von Krafft-Ebing adopted these terms, and they became the standard terms to describe differences in sexuality. An indirect result of this was that bisexuality “ceased to exist”, and the two categories slowly became group identities with a number of behaviour-caractheristics attaced to them. Later, as a result of the latter, came the inventions of limp wrist, butch, yo-man style and lots of other inventions pertaining to the field of behaviourism. Sexuality became roles..written by powerful others.

“How enlightened you are depends upon who is holding the light, and what remains in the shadow.” (Isa-Jan '07)

This article is based on Richard Bruvoll jr.’s contribution to a group based paper on sexology at the University of Agder, 2007. The paper was, among other things, based on the book “Erotikk og Fundamentalisme” by psychologist and sexologist Thore Langfeldt, where he shed light on the history of sexuality. Bruvoll jr has with this article, continued to work on this contribution, as well as directing the attention to the research that is being done to shake the foundations of these old and established “truths”. It’s also very interesting to take a closer look into bisexuality, which has been consistently kept invisible for the last centuries.

Bisexuality is the “enfant terrible” of the categories, it is “defiant”, and very widespread (more than most people wish to believe) and it disturbs both gender roles – both heterosexuality and homosexuality. What’s funny is that it would appear that bisexuality can be considered more and more as the fundamental sexuality in the individual. Eventually, it might be more fitting to use the term “freesexual” – this term is free of role-stereotypes, it has no notions of sex, it encompasses all genders, races and other categories. Bisexuality is simply just fundamentally sexual; it is not a stereotypical behaviour!

If you are obsessive-compulsively concerned with keeping your old “this is the way it is” truths, ( or "just so" stories) without even considering where they came from, the best idea would probably be to stop reading right here, and find something else to read instead. Let us for example assume that you are a hip-hopper – it might be a strong psychological strain to discover that both your conceptions about gender and sexuality are as conservative as the Pope’s are, and that they most likely are based on the very same source. There is no defence in the fact that the Pope does not say “fucking ho” (at least we can assume that he doesn’t) - the hip-hoppers are probably the least controversial subculture of today – it’s more or less an unwilling conservative defence of old stone aged conceptions of genders and sexuality, but by all means they`re not alone, several cultures and subcultures hold the same false views.

If you want to read on, it might very well be that you will be among the first brave pioneers of the reformation of the hip-hop culture? , or other subcultures ? So, if you want to learn more, this article covers many controversial topics, and as you read along you might very well thank your maker (whomever she might be) for the fact that you weren’t a passionate masturbator in the 1800th century. But, the story starts a little earlier – more specifically approximately 5000 years ago.

Reject the tradition

The cultures influenced by the abrahamitic traditions (Judaism / Christianity / Islam), are in general more or less hetero-cultural. None of them can be considered indie- or freecultural. The history of sexuality can also more or less be considered the division of sexuality from love - a result of the “dualism”. As mentioned, this is also the history of the covering of what may very well be the primordial sexuality – the bisexuality – or even more properly expressed: the Freesexuality.

If a form of sexuality is conditioned as either culturally, socially or psychologically, then it’s definitely the “pure” heterosexuality as it has been cultivated in our history. All evidence points to this, and this is strengthened further by looking at cross disciplinary scientific comparisons. This is the dark side of the ecological-psychological Bronfenbrenner/Cooley-processing of false meta-theoretical assumptions, which has been accepted as “truths” - “truths” which again are based on pre-modern religious dogmas – and the modernism’s pathological view of these. The tyranny of categories and normalizing was an even further strengthening of these “truths”. The modernism, with the birth of modern science, more or less took the religious sins, and turned them into diagnoses.

The term “meta-theory” is a description of reality based on fundamental assumptions, e.g. as seen in relation to the view on fellow man, ontology, scientific views, etc (Flint-2003 / Eckhoff-98). Such a fundamental assumption doesn’t necessarily have to be deliberate either.

These conceptions have been continued into the modern pop-culture, which has further strengthened and consolidated this false view on reality through movies, music, trends, pop- and subcultures. The first challenge of the post-modernism must be to reveal the pre-modern and the modern lies, to free the individual from these degenerative cultural and sub-cultural strait jackets.

The black thread; the birth of shame

In the passages that deal with “Judaism, Christianity, Islam and sexuality”, as well as masturbation from creation to insanity, it’s the black thread that dominates. This black thread can be traced all the way back to the Semitic culture, and the latter is still considered the origin of our modern comprehension of sexuality. The Semites was a strongly male dominated culture, which is also considered the founders of the first monotheistic religion – Judaism (A monotheistic religion encompasses the belief in one almighty God). Judaism in turn paved the way for Christianity and Islam – and the three religions are commonly known as the Abrahamitic religions (Geels, Wikstrřm-1999). The Semitic tradition of a male dominance is also very predominant in all these three religions. The origins of shame can be traced back easily to the Mosaic laws, which more or less also are a part of both Christianity and Islam.

God and circumcision

Circumcision appears early in the Semitic culture, as a sign of the pact between the humans and God. In Egypt, the first signs of circumcision (of men), can be found ca. 2300 BC. We also see this reflected in the early Judaism, where Abraham promised God that all men should be circumcised as a sign of their belonging to the people of Israel. That reproduction was the main focus for sexual acts early on is illustrated by the sacrifices of boy children to God for the sake of reproduction in the time before Abraham.

Circumcision was later also a continued practice by both the Moslems and the Catholics. In regards to circumcision of women, we know that the Pharaonic circumcision can be traced back to approximate the 5th century BC. The latter encompasses that both the clitoris, and inner sex lips, and parts of the outer sex lips are removed (today this is commonly considered mutilation). Circumcision of boys and girls are not only an Abrahamitic tradition, but among the Moslems is also a result of their embraces of traditions based in the North- and East-African cultures, as Islam was widespread adopted in these regions - Pharaonic circumcision is still practiced in several countries in North-Africa. When we consider circumcision in our time, one might say that it is a result of a direct influence from religious dogmas (Judaism, Catholicism, Islam), as well as an indirect influence from “inheritance” of the modernism’s pathologization of masturbation – however, the latter is on the whole and large applicable only to the Anglo-American cultures (Magasinet-2004).

The red thread

As mentioned above, one can discuss two main discourses – the Sumerian (free, liberal, open and exploring – also sexually) and the Semitic – and one can establish that it would be the Semitic discourse that would come to dominate large parts of the world with its dark views on sexuality. But, if the Sumerian view did not have a mentionable influence after the Semites entry into Mesopotamia, one can still see similarities with the practices of for instance ancient Greece, ca. 2500 years ago. The ancient Greeks did not only pursue philosophy and science, but also the eroticism, and this was not an exclusive male pursuit - the women were also actively pursuing this. Bisexuality was broadly widespread, and was a core practice – for instance in relation to athletics and bodybuilding – and was widespread both among men and women. In the intellectual circles it was common for young boys to have sexual relations with their teachers.

It’s also interesting to note that the Sumerian culture, similar to the Greek culture, was very creative and innovative. The Sumerians were the inventors of the wheel, and presumably also the inventors of writing. It’s almost tempting to draw comparisons between a liberal conduct and a free sexuality to strong creativity and inventiveness. The Orphism that arose in archaic time, 700-480 BC (Caplex-2007), counted Orpheus as its founder, and also spread to southern Italy, where the Pythagoreans adopted it – the Pythagoreans were a religious-mystic federation which presumably was founded by Pythagoras. Among the Orphean Gods, Eros and Sophia were core beings. The latter was the God of wisdom, and was both male and female. This God also was the origin of all life – also the life of other Gods. The Orphism is presumably the origin of dualism. The Orpheans believed that if you lead a “pure” life, in pact with their ideals, the soul would be freed from the body after death, and live a happy life ever after. In the Pythagorean philosophy and mystics we also find the dualism as a core to understanding the soul and the body. They believed in reincarnation but, like the Orpheans, also believed in a final liberation of the soul as a result of the “pure” philosophies. The dualism was continued by Plato, and also later appeared in Christianity by the design of the new-Platonists and new-Pythagoreans – but then with entirely different definitions of what “purity” encompassed.

The transformation of dualism

After a while sexuality was also subject to the dualistic separation between soul and body. The body was considered less worth, and the task of freeing oneself from this body’s sinful cravings was considered paramount. This dualistic view on sexuality was further strengthened by the Iranian religious-philosopher Mani (approximately 200 years AD). The Manichaeism maintained a view that humans had two souls, one for the good and one for the evil. The fight between these two was a core view with the Manichaeans, and even inside marriage sexual desire was considered a sin - the pure ascetic was considered the noblest of all. The Manichaeism received a widespread adoption in the Roman Empire, and also had a strong impact on the shaping of Islam – both the Christian and the Moslem fundamentalism is strongly based in Manichaeism.

The early Christianity didn’t evolve a philosophical analysis of sexuality, even though the apostle Paul, with his missionary work, had already connected shame to certain types of sexual conduct. This shame was considerably strengthened in the Christian culture especially by Augustin and later Aquinas. Augustin was a Manichaean for several years before he broke with it and adopted new-Platonism and Christianity. He was later baptized, and even ordinated to Bishop. Augustin created a synthesis of new-Platonism, Manichaeism and Christianity – where reproduction was soon considered the only “natural” sexual act. Anything that related to desire was considered sinful and harmful for the soul. Augustin is considered one of the greatest men of the church, and had great influence on both the theology and philosophy of the medieval ages.

Christianity was an effective tool in the hands of people with power, especially because of the moral rules and it being a monotheistic religion – governed by one single almighty God. Christianity was thus quickly adopted by the state as a way to regulate, influence and restrain all aspects of human life and behaviour. For several centuries it was enforced on the people with brute force through the use of the inquisition. Those thinkers who did not want to conduct themselves as Christianity demanded, was convicted as heretics, and executed by burning. Religion and politics was the same thing. The intolerance was consolidated even stronger in the thirteenth century, when Thomas Aquinas – also considered one of the most important philosophers of Christian history – repeated and emphasized the importance of what Augustin had proclaimed centuries earlier; that all sexual acts not intended to lead to conception was unnatural and sinful. Semen should be used for reproductive causes only, and even when used for reproduction, any form of erotic thoughts was considered sinful. As a result of this, masturbation, anal- and oral intercourse, and sex between two people of the same sex, was banned. This led to several tragic outcomes – for instance rape of a woman, by a man, was not considered very sinful, since the woman could conceive as a result.

Regarding Aquinas – it’s very interesting to note that he, near the end of his life, completely distanced himself from everything he had written. After a traumatic heart failure and something modern experts considers an NDE (Near Death Experience), he wrote that everything he had upheld should be considered as meaning- and worthless. It would be interesting to see if this is part of the curriculum at theological studies (!).

Masturbation kills - Science and the transformation of sin to modern insanities

Masturbation is considered harmful, dangerous and epidemic. In addition to the two main discourses, which here describe the black and the red thread, we can also divide the course of history roughly into three eras; the pre-modern, the modern and the post-modern. While we have so far been occupied with the pre-modern era, we now gradually move into the modern era. Theories on sexuality first started to appear in the 1700th century (the start of the era known as modernism), but implicitly these theories carried with them the inheritance from the Abrahamitic religions. The inheritance mainly consisted of the views on sexuality the act of reproduction was considered the only natural use of sex. As a result of this, any other sexual expression was considered “unnatural”, “impure”, and thus also “abnormal” and even “damaging”.

Scientific fundamentalists are no more charming than religious fundamentalists (N.N.)

This meta-theoretic basis permeates all statutory prohibitions, theories and forms of therapy that emerged by the end of the 1700th century, and all of them (and somewhat still do) has one thing in common – they try to curb and restrain the “dangerous and dirty” sexuality. In addition, masturbation – or self-contamination as it was also called – was subject to a massive and pathologizing focus. Perhaps the “contamination” itself was viewed as love for oneself – or love for the same sex, instead of the opposite? Meanwhile, the woman was gradually desexualized/asexualized. Still, masturbation was once a high-grade sexual act. For instance the Egyptian god Atum, the first force of the universe that arose from the original darkness, masturbated and turned into the god Ra – god of the Sun. From his semen the first divine beings arose, Shu and Tefenet. These again gave life to heaven (Nut) and the earth (Geb). An old papyrus scroll shows the earth’s self-preservative fertility, where Geb performs auto-fellatio (the act of performing oral sex on oneself) and swallows his own semen. This is the oldest known illustration of the holy power of masturbation.

However, as we have seen, the Semitic religions did not share this spiritual view on masturbation. Even though it was firmly established that masturbation was a major sin, there was still no one who claimed that masturbation was dangerous until around the end of the 16th century. However, during that time sexuality was subjected to focus from medical circles. It all probably started with a book that was published in England at the beginning of the 17th century. The book was called “Onania, or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution, and All its Frightful Consequences in Both Sexes, Considered. With Spiritual and Physical Advice who have already injur’d Themselves by This Abominable Practice”. With this book the term Onanism was born.

“Onanism” comes from the biblical story about Onan, a story that actually doesn’t tell about masturbation at all. Simply put, Onan refused to fertilize his dead brother’s wife to save the honour of the dead and childless brother. Instead, he let his semen fall to the earth, and God thus let him die. The book was published under a pseudonym, but it has been claimed later that it was the self-appointed doctor John Martens who was behind it. Thankfully, he also had a curative mixture, which he sold for 12 shilling a bottle.

Onanism was in a record-breaking short span of time established as a conception within the circles of both the faithful and the scholarly - as Dr. Langfeldt expresses it: “This term, onania, brought religion and medicine together in an ungainly discourse” - and from this point on, masturbation and homosexuality was in focus. And as we soon shall see, these two behaviours were also seen in relation to one another, in no small ways thanks to Rousseau’s hypothesis on seduction. But, before that, this “self-contamination” was transformed to life-threatening heights by a Swiss doctor and epidemiologist by the name Samuel Auguste David Tissot – and onanism became a medical diagnosis, in spite of no serious research to support this claim.

An honourable exception to this, though, was the British doctor John Hunter, who claimed that it was the inflicted shame and guilt that was damaging – but his publications was later censored. Masturbation was allegedly the cause of tuberculosis, madness, epilepsy, blindness – even death in young age – among others. Towards the end of the 18th century it was common to circumcise boys in Great Britain and in the USA to prevent masturbation. It was all built on short circuiting, a meta-theoretic inheritance from the Abrahamitic religions about “unnatural” sexuality.

Another person who would receive a lot of influence on this discourse was the Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, noted in short above. Rousseau is most likely known for most people as the writer of “Du contrat social”, also known as the catechism of the revolution. But, at the same time, he also published a thesis on the bringing up of children. Here, he claimed, among others, that parents hurt their children through sickly relations to sexuality and exposure of this. He viewed a child as a sort of “Tabula Rasa” (empty board / not described page), inspired by the philosopher Aristotle. Just after the publishing of this thesis, he also established familiarity with Tissot, and his thesis on masturbation. Rousseau himself was an unhappy sadomasochist, and he claimed that his sexual disposition had its cause in a childhood experience where he as an eight year old boy had lain with a naked abdomen on his governess’ lap, while she spanked him.

The combination of “Tabula Rasa” and his own childhood experience most likely based the foundation of what has later been deemed the hypothesis on seduction. Meanwhile, masturbation and homosexuality was also associated, probably as a result of homosexual acts usually involving mutual masturbation. This also fit, hand in glove, with the hypothesis on seduction, as well as the understanding of the human as a tabula rasa. Masturbation was not only damaging by itself, but it also lead to the widespread adoption of homosexuality.

Masturbation had now truly reached the “epidemic” heights! The hypothesis on seduction was not disposed of until 1981 through one of the most extensive studies on sexuality that has ever been conducted (Bem-2007). But even so this mentality still lives on among people today, but in the “free” world is probably most widespread in the USA. In this regards it is also interesting to note that “Behaviourism”, also called “The Second Force of Psychology”, has had, and still has, a strong foothold in the USA. This builds on the understanding that the individual is a tabula rasa (Engler-1995) – simply put: Everything is learned.

It was also the Anglo-American cultures that became the greatest opponents of masturbation in the 18th century. One of the American pioneers of fighting masturbation, Sylvester Graham, claimed that the diet was an important factor of fighting this vice. Among other things, one should avoid white bread, pork meat and tobacco, and substitute these with whole-grain products. Graham in turn inspired Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and his brother, who at the end of the 18th century introduced a cereal that should reduce sexual urges, and as such prevent masturbation – a product known today as “Kellogg’s Corn Flakes”.

This might seem innocent enough, but far worse was the fact that it was the same Dr. Kellogg who recommended circumcision of boy children to cure masturbation. This should preferably be done without anaesthesia, because the pain of the operation would have an amplifying effect on the expected result. For girls, he recommended the usage of pure carbolic acid on the clitoris, to lessen this abnormal tension.

In Norway, Dr. Ludvig Dahl, our first Director of Medicine, introduced gymnastics in the schools to prevent sexual desires. He claimed that blood gathered in the head and groin when the pupils sat still too long, and that this stimulated the desire to masturbate (Magasinet-2004). This sickly attitude towards masturbation still lives on in several cultures and environments in modern days. In 1994 the American Minister of Health Jocelyn Elders, was fired because she suggested that masturbation should be a part of the sexual education of American schools (CNN-2005). And here in Scandinavia the preacher Runar Sřgaard still travels around and fights masturbation through prayer (Magasinet-2004).

One can safely establish that neither prayer, corn flakes or gymnastics has worked as intended – but the side effects can be said to be okay. Corn Flakes for instance don’t taste all that bad...

The Semitic discourse is put to the test – sexology becomes science

On this I know the learned man:
What he doesn’t understand is imprudence;
What he hasn’t touched doesn’t exist;
What he hasn’t gauged is buffoonery;
What he hasn’t weighed does not have a weight;
What he hasn’t minted is defect.
   - Goethe’s Faust (from Andre Bjerke’s translation to Norwegian – Bastiansen-2003).

The science of sexology that has been established during the modernist era can be roughly divided into two discourses. On one side one will find those who followed in Rousseau’s steps, and believed that seduction and particularly masturbation was harmful – like Charcot, Magnon, Binet, Krafft-Ebing, Breuer and Freud. These were obviously coloured by the Abrahamitic inheritance (The Black Thread).

On the other side one will find those who believed that the child had a natural sexuality, which one wasn’t seduced into. They also believed that mutual masturbation was harmless. This discourse consisted of: Stekel, Moll, Bloch, Forel and Kind (The Red Thread), and are also the heralds to the modern sexology. Wilhelm Stekel said that if a child stopped masturbating, it was because the parents, or others in their environment, punished them for doing so (In other words, applying shame). He said that most children masturbated from a young age, but kept it hidden from the time when Freud claimed the latency period was entered.

Stekel also said that we were born bisexual, and said that one could discern from historical studies, and his own studies, that neither the pure heterosexuality – nor the pure homosexuality – could be an inborn trait. He said that humans were born bisexual, and that it was the childhood environment that decided whether a person became hetero- or homosexual. This latter trend, with its further perspective, can maybe best be described as a Sumerian tradition. It was this very trend that was threatening to the Nazism, and as such led to the perhaps greatest extinction of scientific literature in history.

With modernity also came the need to gauge, differentiate and categorize. Typical of this is perhaps the fact that “homosexuality” as a concept was established in 1863 (before the category heterosexuality, which came 6 months later!). As a result of this categorizing and polarising, bisexuality was renounced, “forgotten and suppressed” – still, one can say that it indirectly arose again as “identity confusion” in the theorems of psychoanalysis after Freud (Engler-1995). This affected everyone – and for the first time ever, sexual attraction was a group-identity.

Richard von Krafft-Ebing was one of those who found interest in sexual deviants. He regarded these deviants as person who suffered from identity confusion. This was in line with the modern differentiation of people, but also in line with Rousseau and the Semitic discourse’s pathologization of natural functions. Krafft-Ebing had a theory that perverted instincts were awakened through various social factors, like for instance the modern persons way of life (not entirely unlike Rousseau). He also claimed that excessive masturbation during adolescence, and mutual masturbation on boarding schools, could lead to homosexuality.

But Krafft-Ebing still saw the people behind the diagnoses, and also kept an open mind in regards to their sufferings. He was also willing to modify his theories, as he got to know the people behind the diagnoses and their stories. His very usage of the case-method has probably contributed to his understanding of things in a greater and more nuanced perspective. The latter is probably also his greatest contribution to the sexologists who came after him, as well as the psychiatry (and eventually also the psychology). As to his views on homosexuality, it was perhaps Carl Heinrich Ulrichs, and his theory that homosexuality was genetic, that made Krafft-Ebing modify his view on it as abnormal. In fact, the modified his view on homosexuality so radically during his career that he near the end of his life held out homosexuals as completely healthy people, and even claimed their importance as cultural and social contributors.

Sigmund Freud came into conflict with many of his fellow colleagues as a result of his theory on seduction, where he claimed that behind any neurosis there was a suppressed episode of seduction – and by seduction he referred to any type of action that could awaken children’s sexuality, completely in line with Krafft-Ebing’s theory of perverted instincts that was awakened, in other words congenital dispositions. Before Freud came with his theories about children’s sexuality, it was popularly established among his colleagues that children had a sexuality (And if anyone should be granted the title of pioneer in this regards, it must be Albert Moll).

Freud came to that children from the very beginning has a generic desire, which eventually tends towards the environment, and then in particular the parents. Freud described the evolution of the child through 5 psychosexual stages:

The oral phase; where sucking is the sexual form of expression. The anal phase; where pooping is a sexual act. The phallic phase; where the sexual organs becomes central (Phallus means an erect penis). The latent phase; where the child is asexual, and the last phase which he dubbed the genital stage (and this formulation is interesting): “Where the sexual organs evolve and mature, and the individual is enabled to partake in the sexual role that the culture of the child delineate (!) (Engler-1995) - simply put, the phase where the child is forced into heterosexuality.

Freud further claimed that masturbation lead to neurasthenia, and that a discontinuance of this leads to an anxiety neurosis. His theory that a child was born polymorphous perverted meant that it was the evolution of shame that made a child suppress the “sickly” sexuality (Neurasthenia means neural impairment, neurotic fatigue both physically and psychologically, and an experience of undefined pains in the body – and polymorphous means an ability to assume several shapes. For instance: the element carbon can appear both as diamond and graphite (Caplex-2007)). Freud modified some of his theories later on – among others he eventually figured that boys who masturbate together does not necessarily become homosexuals. At the transition to the 19th century Freud’s theories about sexuality stood strongly opposed to the society-radicals view, as well as the new sexology with among others Stekel, Moll and Bloch who lead the way (The Sumerian Red Thread). In contrast to the latter, Freud claimed that sexual intercourse was the only form of normal sexuality, and he meant that the woman had a weaker identity that the man, and as such could easier be seduced to perverted actions.

Iwan Bloch was one of the first to introduce anthropological and ethnological methods to better understand sexual phenomenon. Such an interdisciplinary approach contributed to a far more nuanced view and understanding. Albert Moll denied both the theory of seduction, and the “harmful” masturbation, and he could document that Freud was in error. It can safely be said that they contributed to the raising of sexology from a level of opinions to a level where it was far more based on factual science. With modernity also came the Gauss-curve, and as such “normality” was established, but with a great impact on the individual naturalness, freedom and behaviour.

"Contempt is always closely related to self-contempt" (Finn Skårderud)

Langfeldt claims that Freud’s diffuse description about children and their sexuality mirrors Freud’s own sexual insecurity. Freud wrote to, among others, a friend and colleague of his (Sandor Ferenczi) and told that he had overcome his own homosexuality. And Freud was also uncertain about what to think about bisexuality – but his allegations about the polymorphous perverse child implied that all “perverted” sexual talents was congenital, included bisexuality. Later Freud confessed his bisexual tendency after going through a self-analysis.

Both historical and anthropological studies documented a vast dispersion of bi- and homosexuality, both ritual and generic - even the Greek homage and idolatry of this type of love, together with other superior cultural expressions, proved that they weren’t sick. Also, observations that showed that men, who from different reasons were cut off from associating with women in periods, had sexual intercourse with one another, just like children and adolescents, were not sick or degenerated.

Signs of the time - and other potential approaches

When considering anthropological and ethnographical studies of sexuality, these can among others with their vertical approach, tell some stories, and by comparison show dissimilarities in sexual behaviour with higher or lesser degrees of shame. And not the least in “isolated” cultures, that hasn’t been influenced much by the Semitic discourse (The black thread). Such scientific disciplines can also enlighten us to relations where the shame hasn’t lead to sexual behaviour going “below ground” (or the bedcovers), and as such become invisible. Stekel claimed, as mentioned, that we are born bisexual, and that it was our childhood and adolescence that formed us into one or the other – that neither homo- nor heterosexuality is congenital. There are many interesting studies that can be referred to from our own era that can be said to strengthen Stekel’s theory – one example of this is William Davenport’s Eastbay study, where they observed bisexuality in more or less the entire male population during the entire lifetime, while living in heterosexual marriage (Baghemil-1999). Monkeys in general also haven’t been affected much by the Semitic discourse, or religion in general, and certainly haven’t been frightened below the covers during Freud’s “period of latency” (they can’t lie, deny or suppress either).

The absences of shame in other words give the scientists the opportunity to a more direct observation of humankind’s natural and fundamental sexual potentials and talents. At the same time these kinds of studies can indirectly give us valuable knowledge of the psychological effects of shame and guilt, as well as the processes, mechanisms and dynamic functions in this regards.

As we have seen above, the normal and abnormal was clearly differentiated at the entrance to the modern era, and non-heterosexual attraction was also turned into personal identity disturbances. At the same time, all this was also a part of laying the foundations to homophobia, but this was not accepted as a concept until almost a hundred years later.

When people claim that homosexuality is culturally conditioned in the Semitic influenced cultures, it’s more or less like shooting one’s own foot. If there is a sexual direction which truly has been culturally conditioned, it must be heterosexuality – in fact so heavily that we can safely talk about hetero-cultures. This abnormal fascination with homosexuality in itself also tells an indirect history about a “threatening” propagation (as well as a solid anxiety of a bisexual potential).

In regards to homophobia, it might just be a good idea to rethink that into the term bi-phobia instead, since we can safely assume that bisexuality is in fact the greatest threat to hetero-normality (Mesey-2000/Adams-1996). John Money, one of the most important sexologists and scientists in our modern time, also claimed that homophobia in a great degree mirrors a “malignant bisexuality” (Money-1988).

In regards to the psychosexual stage Freud dubbed the Period of Latency, it might just be about time to actually redefine it – it would most likely be far more appropriate to dub it: “The Psychosexual Stage of Denial and Repression”.

Translated by Morten Wattř

External Links

More Info