Freudian psychoanalysts held that all people, male and female, are born bisexual and like a light switch held between on and off, will usually fall into one of two extremes. Freudians, on the whole, did not consider homosexuality to be an aberration or sickness in and of itself, but that societal pressures would undoubtedly contribute to unhealthy fetishes and sexual behaviors.
Following the light switch analogy, Alfred Kinsey’s famous scale would be like a dial pointing somewhere between homosexuality and heterosexuality: a continuum where the large majority resides very near the heterosexual end.
The twentieth century, with the discovery of a molecular basis for inheritance, saw a sharp rise in the use of terms like “inherent” and “predisposition” in lay discussions of animal behavior. Incidentally, it is of no surprise that discussions of human behavior dwell on human sexuality. Coitus, fornication, fucking, whatever you like to call it, is fun. It’s fun to do; it’s fun to talk about.
Sexual Freedom and the Differential Objectification of the Sexes. Pure objectification of humans has, strangely enough, not gone out of style. Entire ad campaigns for instance, whether lauded or despised, are based on reducing other people to objects: especially objects of desire. And in this globalized culture, objects are to be owned.
But where does the objectification of males differ from that of women?
This is not a loaded question, and one that I don’t feel competent answering it in full. The level of differentiation between female/male objectification is to a large extent result of the masculine/feminine power, based on gender-specific roles couched with elements of submissiveness and dominance, within a particular culture. Although we had a semblance of equality coming out of the twentieth century, there is a noticeable and measurable element of male dominance. (Just read Feministing, Pandagon, or Feministe on any given day.)
This is distinctly related to the IFB myth and the type of male who would adopt and preach it as Truth. One way of rationalizing the myth is that women are the sole source of human sexuality. We can all agree that they tend to be the curvier and better smelling of the species, but that doesn’t mean that men can’t (or shouldn’t) be sexual objects. The myth is, therefore, a coping mechanism for some men who feel inadequate with their own sexual desirability, and doubles as a means of avoiding male objectification, and perceived ownership, at all costs.
One would be hard pressed to find a serious reference to all men being totally, inherently bisexual from a feminist voice. Alternatively, I’ve yet to hear a woman tell a gay man that he “just hasn’t been with a real woman, yet.” Implicit in the assuming of IFB, is that women are not sexually sophisticated enough for their own subjectivity to be trusted:
- “Women cannot be straight because seeing two chicks kissing is hot!”
- “Women cannot be lesbians because they must be sexually available to men”, which is a watered down version of “Even lesbians need cock.”
See how that works? Men can be self-described heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals. But women, with all the sexual power they wield, have absolutely no choice. And restricting choice is the modus operandi of a patriarchal agenda.
[This is likely to turn into a three-part series. Next time: “What the Scientists Think”.]
[Lauren added: Ryan regularly blogs at Liberal Avenger. Welcome again!]