The worst punishment possible is isolation through the removal of intimacy. Solitary confinement is the worst punishment short of death. Emotional intimacy is a basic necessity for the social animal called “human.”
A most important element of sexual and emotional intimacy is closeness through touching. Touching need not necessarily be sexual to be intimate. Feelings of love and trust transmitted by touch begin at birth, and this early contact is more complete than at any other time of life, except during the sexual act. But body contact occurs throughout life, even if in an adult’s formal and ritualized fashion. The handshake of the stranger, the kiss on the cheek, the hug, the touching of the shoulder are some of the acceptable behaviors that all peoples and races possess. The specific form of touching may vary, but some form is universally necessary and desirable.
We can now understand somewhat better the causes of hetero- and homophobia. Essentially, they result from a fear of sexual intimacy following upon emotional intimacy. Emotional intimacy generally entails some form of body contact or at least proximity, and that, of course, can get too close for comfort. So to ensure that sex stays far enough away, we also sometimes avoid emotional intimacy. The heterophobic male homosexual is unable to imagine true emotional intimacy with a woman, wherein sexual intimacy is transcended and indeed, irrelevant. The progression to natural, affectionate physical contact is waylaid by his heterophobia. The homophobic heterosexual man is unable to imagine full emotional intimacy with a man, wherein touching and physical satisfaction on a nonerotic, nonsexual level are not only possible, but logical and necessary. His homophobia is stronger than his sense of the intimate truth of the situation.
Hetero- and homophobia also cause, in part, the formalization and ritualization of physical contact during intimate adult behavior. The full embrace is permitted only between lovers (where sexual intimacy is openly acknowledged), and sometimes between relatives (but not always, because of the underlying fear of incest). It’s permitted between people in times of triumph and in sports where, for example, football players may hug because their “masculinity” is considered beyond question. It is also allowed after a disaster, or when in despair. At such times two men are permitted to hug, even kiss; taboos are forgotten and no sexual significance is attributed to the contact because it is regarded in the same light as the primary, “presexual” embrace of infancy.
What happens to someone who, over a long period, denies such a real and personal human need? What happens is neurosis–its severity will depend on how far–going the flight from complete intimacy is.
The substitution of pets for real human contact is one form of flight from intimacy. But certain kinds of human contact can themselves be substitutes. A former patient of mine could relate intimately only with children under the age of three or four. She felt safe in the expression of emotion with very small boys and girls because the chance of possible rejection was limited, and the burden of sexuality was–to her mind, at least–nonexistent. “I like to bite their little rumps,” she once said, revealing a real need for intimacy, emotional and sexual, far greater than she was willing to see or admit to at the beginning of therapy.
Intimacy substitutes begin with the teddy bears and security blankets of childhood. Later substitutes may include the comfort of fur coats; contacts with hairdressers, masseurs, or tailors; or physical care called forth by real or pretended illness. All these are unhealthy only to the degree that they are utilized to the exclusion of people, but as Desmond Morris points out in Intimate Behaviour, “Any intimacy, however far removed it becomes from the real thing, is still better than the frightening loneliness of no intimacy at all.”
The broader the possibilities for 100 percent intimacy, the wider the shadow of fear can become. Psychosexuality, the fear monster of our time is like some two-headed dragon: the homophobia of heterosexuals and the heterophobia of homosexuals. The exclusivity of homosexual or heterosexual behavior splits us into two camps, separately helpless to slay this dragon–indeed, feeding him like some monstrous pet. We will slay the dragon only when we join together, yielding to what unites us (the capacity for intimacy) rather than to what separates us (fear).
When he arrives, our St. George may be a bisexual because he or she, having experienced sexual intimacy with both men and women, can show us that there is nothing to fear in selective emotional intimacy. He or she must be a healthy bisexual, with the capacity for emotional intimacy with both sexes. Without that capacity, possible in the healthy heterosexual and homosexual, there is only limited sexual intimacy, however pleasurable. And that is not enough, because constant sex without the element of intimacy adds up to the spiritual desolation inherent in promiscuity. This is not to say that selective random sex for its own sake is not good. But sex for its own sake is not enough for complete intimacy.
We can have it all. We can also have it even without complete bisexuality. Tom A., an acquaintance of mine, would not call himself bisexual, nor would his relatives, friends, or business associates label him so. He operates, however, at 100 percent intimacy through a loving marriage of 11 years and through the friendship of Paul W., with whom he has had an open–armed communion of feeling for nine years.
Tom has a good emotional and sexual exchange with his wife (their union has produced two children) and a good emotional bond with his best friend. Both Tom and Paul enjoy intimacy without sexual exchange occurring–an uneroticized intimacy. “Hell, what kind of question is that?” he replied, laughing, when I asked him if his relationship with his friend had ever reached the sexual stage. “Paul and I could fall into the sack together. Sure. But we don’t need that. We have good times with our wives.” He then related how once, on a fishing trip, Paul and he masturbated together at the end of the day. They had been away from home for five days and were sharing everything else. So why, they figured, should they go off in the bushes alone to masturbate? They felt close and hugged afterward before going to sleep. Tom feels that “You have to be close to another man to do that, so that you won’t be judged–which is what everyone is afraid of.” He says that if Paul and he ever “made it,” it would be fine; though not necessary, it’s also “no big deal.”
On another occasion he said he would not be interested in having sex with another man since men don’t turn him on. However, he doesn’t mind closeness with men; in fact, he likes it. He thinks it’s all the same, if one looks at people as people before looking at them as possible sex partners. Tom admitted, however, that he finds that hard to do with women, especially if “you see a really well-built woman–it’s hard to see beyond that.”
Tom is 34 years old, owns his own home in suburban Connecticut, and is a union electrician of good reputation and standing. He is an attractive, cheerful man whose capacity to give and take love enables him to be intimate with both sexes. He is lucky. He fell into the dragon’s cave, and because he knew no fear, he came to no harm. I say he is lucky because the capacity for intimacy can have neurotic as well as healthy factors. Intimacy for Tom does not mean a show of power; nor is he a dependent type. We know that some people, for instance, marry for what they think is love, when in reality they harbor neurotic power/dependency needs having little to do with love. Intimacy on this level can be exploited for gain, with no giving. I call such intimacy “negative internal’–an absence of trust in liking, loving, and sharing with other people. But usually when I speak of intimacy, I’m speaking of something where the scales are reasonably well-balanced between giving and getting.
Tom, though not a bisexual, operates on a nonerotic bisexual level in that his capacity for emotional intimacy knows no gender limit. It is his own sense of freedom on this emotional level–as indicated by his self–rating of 4 (both sexes equally) on the KSOG for the Emotional Preference variable–that helps make Tom psychosexually healthy.
The healthy bisexual is healthy not because of his sexual intimacy with both sexes, but because of the enormous range of his emotional capacity. The healthy heteros
exual and homosexual are also able to achieve emotional intimacy with men and women equally. The essential difference between the healthy bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual is only evident in individual sexual preferences and behavior. Emotionally, the three groups all operate on a “bisexual” level, that is (as with Tom), they have no fear of emotional intimacy with either sex.
On the “bisexual-intimacy level,” men and women are more alike than they are different, which of course isn’t to say that no differences exist. For one thing, men and women treat intimacy itself differently. Important, too, is the role of culture in determining the manner of communication between men and women, between men, and between women, since the manner of communication affects the type of intimacy achieved.
The two types of interaction possible between two people are called symmetrical and complementary. In symmetrical interaction, the partners mirror each other’s actions. It is based on equality and minimization of differences. An example would be two people of any sex, both excellent cooks, who try to outdo each other while preparing a good meal. Complementary interaction maximizes differences to the mutual satisfaction of both people. For example, if the husband makes the decisions and the wife follows them, he being assertive and she submissive, then complementary interaction is taking place. Both types of interaction are necessary for a prospering relationship, which needs both competitive behavior (symmetrical), and one-up and one-down behavior (complementary).
In relationships between men and women, our society stresses the complementary mode of behavior. Until recently little emphasis was placed on the competitive aspect of a male-female relationship. In fact, in many areas it was forbidden. In order for a man and woman to live successfully together, it was felt that they should only complement each other. This frequently meant that the woman buried her competitive drive in order not to run head-on into the man. Most people now realize that a good relationship requires that the woman also compete, in symmetry, with the man.
In friendship between men and men, and women and women, the intimacy type generally allowed is symmetrical. Little complementary interaction is permitted because that usually implies pairing, and pairing implies sexual intimacy. But since emotional and sexual intimacy are different, two male or two female friends might, if they chose, complement each other very well, with no implication of sexual intimacy necessary. The balance between the symmetrical/ complementary types of interaction depends on the chemistry of the two people, male-female, male-male, or female-female. Competition, though, holds little sexual overtone. That is why many friends rely on it to achieve a satisfying intimacy level. But the “bisexual-intimacy level” allows for both, and it is in both that the transcendent closeness inherent in 100 percent emotional intimacy is achieved.
CHAPTER 4
Sexuality and the Oedipus Complex: A New Look
It is an early June morning. A man stands on a street corner on the Upper East Side of Manhattan waiting for the light to change. The sun is warm though not yet uncomfortably hot. The man is wearing a lightweight conservative business suit and carrying a briefcase. He might be a lawyer. Certainly he gives the impression of being a normal American male on his way to a normal American job. His normalcy is further attested to by his obvious pleasure in the women who pass by on every side. While he waits, he discreetly observes them, delighting in the fantasies offered by this pair of legs, that long hair, those breasts. The women take little notice of what the man is doing. It is, after all, normal male behavior. A few objects of his admiration smile, feeling safe in the gentleness of his style and the public context. He is observed by a policeman on the opposite side of the street. A taxi driver slows his cab, too, mistaking him for a possible fare. It would be safe to say that a dozen fellow citizens give him glancing attention before moving on. But had they seen the flirtation between him and another businessman as they both stepped off the curb, it is doubtful that a glance would have been enough. Confusion, and probably condemnation, would have followed, not because of the homosexual implications but because one of the men, seconds earlier, had been “girl watching” in a perfectly normal way.
One reason for the confusion is obvious. The theories of normal sexual development usually don’t allow for a healthy bisexual. In order to broaden our base, let’s take another look at the Oedipus myth, which is the cornerstone of the classical sexual development theory. Might we not, just possibly, be using it to shield ourselves from more truth than we have up to now been able to handle?
The Oedipus myth, as handed down from antiquity, goes like this: Oedipus is brought up by foster parents. While fleeing from Corinth to avoid the oracle’s horrible prediction that he will kill his father and marry his mother, he kills an old man. On reaching Thebes he answers the Sphinx’s riddle and is crowned king. Queen Jocasta is given to him as wife and they bear four children. The tragedy unfolds when Oedipus discovers that the old man he murdered was King Laius, his father, and that Jocasta, his wife, is in fact his mother. In revulsion and horror, he blinds himself. Jocasta commits suicide.
This myth supplied Freud with the paradigm for the Oedipus complex, a stage which every boy goes through at about the age of five in the course of normal development. The boy, who desires his mother, wants to kill his father, the rival for his mother’s love. The power of these two forces–a death wish for the father, incestuous sexual desire for the mother–causes tremendous fear, which involves the loss of love of both parents in the form of retribution, castration, and even death.
To resolve this complex normally, the classic theory, first stated by Freud, holds that the boy must give up his mother as a sexual object. He does this by repressing his sexual wishes for her and transferring his desires onto other women as sexual objects. At the same time he represses his hostile wishes toward the father and instead identifies with him as a man. This is the normal resolution of the positive Oedipus complex.
In addition to the positive Oedipus complex, there is a negative Oedipus complex. In the negative Oedipus complex the boy wants to be loved by the father and to replace the mother as the sexual object choice of his father. This causes hostile feelings of rivalry toward his mother. And here, too, the boy’s desires engender enormous fears involving the loss of love from both parents, fear of castration and death. Normal resolution calls again for the transfer of sexual desire onto other females and identification with the father (and not the mother). Its successful resolution depends on the innate relative strengths of masculine and feminine dispositions in the boy.
A girl also has a positive and negative Oedipus complex to resolve, but for her it’s more complicated. She has to transfer her love from its original object, her mother, to her father. Then she must repress it and transfer it once again to other men, while identifying with mother.
The classical explanation of the Oedipus complex does not account for successful resolution by the homosexual and bisexual in a normal manner. The homosexual is supposedly fixated at a pre-oedipal level. Homosexuality is seen to derive from intimidation during infantile sexuality, which leads to the fear of the normal heterosexual object. Though admitting that the homosexual can function on an everyday level as well as the heterosexual, the orthodox classical view holds that any resolution except the “normal,” heterosexual one is due to incomplete identification with one’s own sex. The homosexual, then, is someone who combines the characteristics of both sexes and has not resolved the Oedipus complex successfully.
Freud wrote, “In all of us, throughout life the libido normally oscillates between male and female objects.” And in 1922 Wilhelm Stekel, Freud’s pupil and assistant, wrote that “All persons originally are bisexual in their predisposition. There is no exception to this rule. Normal persons show a distinct bisexual period up to the age of puberty. The heterosexual then represses his homosexuality. He also sublimates a portion of his homosexual cravings in friendship, nationalism, social endeavors, gatherings, etc….If the heterosexuality is repressed, homosexuality comes to th
e forefront.” In other words, few deny that bisexuality is found in the innate constitution of every human being; but for exactly the same reasons as given for the homosexual, the orthodox theory doesn’t allow for a successful bisexual resolution of the Oedipus complex.
The classical view does not explain the healthy homosexual or the healthy bisexual, and is also murky in regard to women. The “straight” female finds some sanctuary in the theory, but there is no room in it for the homosexual or bisexual. I propose a new look at the Oedipus complex, as follows.
To resolve the positive or negative Oedipus complex successfully, the child must give up his or her sexual desires for both parents. The child must repress these wishes and substitute other people as sexual object choices. This transfer of the child’s sexual wishes onto other people eliminates the fear of losing the parents’ love, the fear of retribution by the rival parent, and the fear of castration and death.
Self-identification as male or female for the boy or girl has nothing to do with the Oedipus complex. The process of identification is carried on separately and begins long before the age at which the Oedipus complex begins. It starts with birth. The baby boy is treated differently from the baby girl, not only by the parents but by the whole environment. Different roles are required. By the time the child begins to speak, he or she already has a gender identity.
The healthy heterosexual has repressed his or her sexual wishes for both parents. But the heterosexual has to use more repression to resolve successfully the negative Oedipus complex than to resolve the positive Oedipus complex: for the former, the heterosexual must repress the sexual desire for one whole gender–his or her own sex. The boy cannot transfer his sexual wishes for his father onto other men, nor the girl hers for her mother onto other women. However, he or she is able to love someone of the same sex on an uneroticized level.
The Bisexual Option Page 5
