Toward a Feminist Sexual Revolution Author(s): Ellen Willis Reviewed work(s): Source: Social Text, No. 6 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 3-21 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466614 . Accessed: 26/01/2013 22:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Towarda FeministSexual Revolution

ELLEN WILLIS

PREFACE

The feministmovement is currentlyengaged in a passionate,explosive debate- or rather,a seriesof overlapping,intertwined debates - aboutsexuality. The argumentshave crystallizedaround specific issues: pornography;the causes of sexual violenceand how best to oppose it; the definitionof sexual consent;the relationof sexual fantasyto actionand sexual behaviorto politicalpractice (is theresuch a thingas "politicallycorrect" sex?); the natureof women'ssexuality and whetherit is intrinsicallydifferent from men's; themeaning ofheterosexuality for women; the political significance of "fringe"sexualities like sadoma- sochism.Each of theseissues has become a focusof deeply felt disagreement over the place of sexualityand sexual moralityin a feministanalysis and program.In one way or another theyraise thequestion of whethersexual freedom,as such, is a feministvalue, or whether feminismought rather to aim at replacingmale-defined social controlsover sexualitywith female-definedcontrols. Whilethere has alwaysbeen tension among feminists with differing sexual attitudes, it is only recentlythat the differenceshave come to the surfaceand definedpolitical factions, creatinga seriousintramovement split. The reasonfor this development, I believe, is therise of thenew right.The women's liberationmovement emerged in a liberalpolitical and social climate;like therest of theleft it devotedmuch of itsenergy to makinga radicalcritique of liberalism.Since sexual liberalismappeared to be firmlyentrenched as thedominant cultural ideology,feminists put a highpriority on criticizingthe hypocrisies and abuses of themale- dominated"sexual revolution."But as liberalismfell apart,so did the apparentfeminist consensus on sex. Confrontedwith a right-wingbacklash bent on suppressingall non- marital,non-procreative sex, feministswho saw sexual liberalismas deeply flawed by sexismbut nonetheless a sourceof crucialgains forwomen found themselves at odds with feministswho dismissedthe sexual revolutionas monolithicallysexist and sharedmany of the attitudesof conservativemoralists. In thisessay I argue thata sexual liberationistperspective is essentialto a genuinely

? ELLENWILLIS, 1982. A shorterversion of thisarticle will appearin TheScholar and theFeminist, Volume II: Class, Race, and Sex: theDynamics of Control, ed. AmySwerdlow and Hanna Lessinger,to be publishedby G. K. Hall & Co. Ellen Willis is a staffwriter at theVillage Voice and theauthor of Beginningto See theLight (Knopf, 1981), a book of essays on cultureand politics. She has been a feministactivist since 1968 and was a co-founderof the originalRedstockings.

3

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 Willis radicalanalysis of women's condition.Much of myargument centers on thepsychosexual dynamicsof thefamily, where children first experience both sexism and sexual repression. This discussionrefers primarily to thefamily as itexists - actuallyand ideologically- for thedominant cultures of modernindustrial societies. Clearly, to extendmy focus backward to feudalsocieties or outwardto the ThirdWorld would require(at the veryleast) a far longer,more complex article.I stronglysuspect, however, that in its fundamentalsthe processof sexual acculturationI describe here is commonto all historical(i.e., patriarchal) societies.

The traditionalpatriarchal family maintains sexual law and orderon two fronts.It regulatesthe relations between the sexes, enforcingmale dominance,female subordination, and thesegregation of "masculine" and "feminine"spheres. It also regulatessexuality per se, definingas illicitany sexual activityunrelated to reproductionor outsidethe bounds of heterosexual,monogamous marriage. Accordingly, the new right'smilitant defense of the traditionalfamily and its values has a dual thrust:it is at once a male-supremacistbacklash againstfeminism and a reactionby culturalconservatives of bothsexes againstthe "sexual revolution"of the past twentyyears. There is, of course, an integralconnection between sexism and sexual repression.The suppressionof women's sexual desire and pleasure, the denial of our rightto control reproduction,and the enforcementof female abstinenceoutside marriage have been - togetherwith our exclusionfrom equal participationin economicand politicalactivity - primaryunderpinnings of male supremacy.Conversely, a restrictivesexual morality inevita- bly constrainswomen morethan men, even in religioussubcultures that profess a single standard.Not onlyis unwantedpregnancy a built-inpunishment for female participation in sex (assumingthe prohibition of birthcontrol and abortionon theone hand,and lesbianism on theother) and thereforea powerfulinhibitor; it is visibleevidence of sexual "delinquen- cy," whichsubjects women who breakthe rules to social sanctionstheir male partners never have to face. Still, it is importantto recognizethat the right's opposition to sexual permis- siveness- as expressedin itsattacks on abortion,homosexuality, "pornography" (defined as any sexuallyexplicit material), sex education,and adolescents'access to contraception and abortionwithout parental consent - has consequences for both sexes. Gays and teenagersare obvious targets.But the success of the "pro-family"agenda would also impingeon the lives of adult heterosexualmen, who would have to contendwith the unwantedpregnancies of theirwives and lovers, women's increasedsexual fears and inhibitions,restrictions on frankdiscussion and public legitimationof sex and sexual fantasy,and a generalchilling of the sexual atmosphere.While some men are willingto acceptsuch constraints on theirown freedomin orderto reassertcertain traditional controls over women,many are not. The dual focus of pro-familypolitics, on feminismand on sex itself,has serious implicationsfor feminist theory and strategy.It means thatfeminists cannot define their oppositionto the pro-familymovement solely in termsof defendingfemale autonomy againstmale power, nor can theyignore the fact that conflict over sexual morality cuts across genderlines. If the women's movementis to organizeeffectively against the right,it will have to develop a politicaltheory of sexualityand in particularan analysisof therelation

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sexual Revolution 5 betweenfeminism and sexual freedom.Such an analysiswould help feministsto identify and avoid responsesto sexual issuesthat unwittingly undercut feminist aims. Itwould clarify many disagreementsamong women who regardthemselves as feminists.It would also enable feministsto seek alliances with male opponentsof the right'ssexual politics- alliancesthat are undoubtedlynecessary if the battle is to be won - on thebasis of a clear understandingof mutualinterests, differences that need to be resolvedto achievea working coalition,and issues on whichit is possible to agree to disagree.The intensityof current debateon sex amongfeminists and gay activistsreflects a visceralcomprehension - if not always an articulateunderstanding - of how much is at stake. At present,the right has its feministopponents at an enormousdisadvantage. The pro- familymovement has a coherentideology and programwhose anti-feministand anti-sexual aspectsreinforce each other.In contrast,feminists are ambivalent,confused, and dividedin theirviews on sexual freedom.While there have beenfeminist sexual libertarians in boththe 19thcentury and contemporarymovements, for the most part women's liberation and sexual liberationhave developed as separate,often antagonistic causes. The sexual libertarian movementthat began in the 1950s was conspicuouslymale-dominated and male-suprema- cist. Thoughit advocateda singlestandard of freedomfrom sexual guiltand conventional moral restrictions,it displayed no insightinto the social reasons for women's greater inhibitionand conformityto moralnorms. On thecontrary, women were blamed - oftenin virulentlymisogynist terms - foradhering to thesexual prohibitionsmen and a patriarchal societyhad forcedon them.At the same timemale libertariansintensified women's sexual anxietiesby equatingrepression with the desire for love and commitment,and exaltingsex withoutemotion or attachmentas theideal. Fromthis perspective liberation for men meant rebellingagainst the demands of women,while liberation for women meant the opportunity (read obligation)to shucktheir "hangups" about casual sex. The questionthat remained unasked was whethermen had sexual hangupsof theirown. Was the rejectionof any linkbetween sexual desireand emotionalinvolvement really an expressionof freedom- or merelyanother form of repression?To whatextent did men's demandfor "pure" sex representa predatorydisregard of womenas people - an attitude thatcould only reinforcethe conventionallyfeminine sexual reluctance,passivity, and unresponsivenessthat men found so frustrating?There was also thetouchy issue of whether sex as conventionallyinitiated and orchestratedby men was pleasurablefor women. In theorythere was muchconcern with female orgasm and theneed formen to satisfywomen; in practicethat concern often translated into a demandthat women corroborate men's ideas aboutfemale sexuality and protectmen's egos by actingsatisfied whether they were or not. A conservativepopular Freudianism neatly coopted the idea thatwomen had a rightto sexual fulfillmentby preachingthat such fulfillmentcould be achieved only through"mature" acceptanceof the feminine role: in effectwomen were told that to activelyassert their sexual needs would make satisfactionof thoseneeds impossible;if theywere submissiveand yet unsatisfiedit meantthey weren't submissive enough. For womentrapped in thislogic, the theoreticalright to orgasm became a new source of pain, inadequacy,and self-blame. Finally, the sexual revolutiondid not seriouslychallenge the taboo on lesbianism(or homosexualityin general). At its inception,the contemporarywomen's liberationmovement was dominatedby young women who had grown up duringor since the emergenceof sexual libertarian ideology;many radical feministscame out of the leftand the counterculture,where that

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 Willis ideologywas particularlystrong. Unsurprisingly, one of the firstissues to surfacein the movementwas women's pent-uprage at men's one-sided,exploitative view of sexual freedom.From our consciousness-raisingsessions we concludedthat women couldn't win no matterhow theybehaved. We werestill oppressed by a sexualdouble standard that while less rigidwas by no means obsolete:women who tooktoo literallytheir supposed right to sexual freedomand pleasurewere regularly put down as "easy," "aggressive," or "pro- miscuous." Heterosexualwomen still lived in fearof unwantedpregnancy; in 1968 abortion was illegal- exceptin themost dire circumstances - in everystate. Yet at thesame time men were demandingthat women have sex on theirterms, unmindful of the possible consequences,and withoutreference to ourown feelingsand needs. In additionto suffering sexualfrustration from the inhibitions instilled by repressive parents, fear of pregnancy,and men's sexual judgmentsand exploitativebehavior, we had to swallow the same men's humiliatingcomplaints about how neurotic,frigid, and unliberatedwe were.Unfortunately, the movement'sefforts to make political sense of this double bind led to confusionsin feministthinking about sexualitythat are stillunresolved. At least in theory,organized feminism from the 60s to thepresent has been unitedin endorsingsexual freedomfor women, including the right to expressour sexual needs freely, to engage in sexual activityfor our own pleasure,to have sex and bear childrenoutside marriage,to controlour fertility,to refusesex withany particularman or all men, to be lesbians.Almost as universally,feminists have regarded male sexualitywith suspicion if not outrighthostility. From the beginning radical feminists argued that freedom as mendefined it was against women's interests;if anythingmen already had too much freedom,at women's expense. One factionin the movementstrongly defended women's traditional demandsfor marriage and monogamyagainst the anti-nuclearfamily, sexual liberationist rhetoricof thecounterculture. Proponents of thisview heldthat the sexual revolution simply legitimizedthe age-old tendency of menin a male-supremacistsociety to coerce,cajole, or fool womeninto giving them sex withoutgetting anything - love, respect,responsibility forthe children, or even eroticpleasure - in return.'At theother extreme were feminists who arguedthat under present conditions, any kind of sexualcontact with men, in marriage or out, was oppressive,and thatthe issue forwomen was how to resistthe relentless social pressureto be witha man.2Later, lesbian separatists elaborated this argument, claiming that only womenwere capable of understandingand satisfyingwomen's sexual needs. Althoughthe idea thatin orderto achieve equalitywomen's sexual freedommust be expandedand men's restrictedhas a surfacecommon-sense logic, in practiceit is fullof contradictions.For one thing,the same social changesthat allow greaterfreedom for women inevitablymean greaterfreedom for men. Historically,a woman's main protectionfrom

1 Some radicalfeminists argued that there was nothingwrong with marriage, per se, onlywith sex roleswithin marriage.(In a sense thisposition was an earlyversion of BettyFriedan's "pro-family"feminism, minus the sentimentalglossing over of male power.) Othersmaintained that while sexual freedomin thecontext of women's liberationwas an ultimategoal, fornow it was in our interestto resistthe sexual revolution.See, forexample, ShulamithFirestone, The Dialectic ofSex (Morrow, 1970), pp. 160-163. Anotherversion of thisargument was advanced by Kathie Sarachild,an influentialtheorist in the early movement,in "Hot and Cold Flashes," The Newsletter,Vol. I #3, May 1, 1969: "We womencan use marriageas the 'dictatorshipof theproletariat' in the familyrevolution. When male supremacyis completelyeliminated, marriage, like thestate, will witheraway." 2 Of the early radical feministgroups takinga female separatistposition, the most influentialwere The Feministsin New York City and Cell 16 in Boston.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sexual Revolution 7 sexual exploitationhas been to be a "good girl" and demandmarriage as theprice of sex - in otherwords, relinquish the freedomto spontaneouslyexpress her sexualityin orderto preserveits bargainingpower. Furthermore,this traditionalstrategy will not work for individualwomen if most women "scab" by abandoningit, which implies the need for some formof social or moralpressure to keep womenin line. (If one assumes thatwomen will voluntarilydecline to take advantageof theirincreased freedom, then demanding it makes no sense in the firstplace.) In practice,relaxing social condemnationof female"unchas- tity"and permittingwomen access to birthcontrol and abortionallays social concernabout men's "ruining" or impregnatingrespectable women, and so invariablyreduces the pres- sureon men- bothfrom women and fromother men - to restraintheir demands for casual sex. Thus the feministcritique of male sexualitytends to bolsterthe familiar conservative argumentthat a moralityrestricting sex to marriageis in women'sinterest - indeed,that its purposeis to protectwomen from selfish male lust. Anotherdifficulty is thatjudgments of men's heterosexualbehavior necessarily imply judgmentsabout whatwomen want. Dissenterswithin feminist groups immediately chal- lengedthe prevailing judgments, arguing with monogamists that they wanted to sleep with more thanone man, or thatthey didn't want the statemessing into theirsex lives, and arguingwith separatists that they enjoyed sex withmen. As a result,assumptions about what womenwant were soon amendedto authoritativepronouncements on whatwomen really want/oughtto want/wouldwant if theywere not intimidated/boughtoff/brainwashed by men. The ironicconsequence has been thedevelopment of feministsexual orthodoxiesthat curtailwomen's freedomby settingup the movementas yet anothersource of guilt- provokingrules about whatwomen shoulddo and feel. That ironyis compoundedby another:the orthodoxies in questiondovetail all too well withtraditional patriarchal ideology. This is mostobviously true of polemics in favorof heterosexualmonogamy, but it is no less trueof lesbianseparatism, which in recentyears has had farmore impact on feministthinking. There have been twooverlapping but distinct tendenciesin lesbian feministpolitics: the firsthas emphasizedlesbianism as a forbidden eroticchoice and lesbiansas an oppressedsexual minority;the other - aligningitself with the separatistfaction that surfaced in the radicalfeminist movement before lesbianism as such became an issue - has definedlesbianism primarily as a politicalcommitment to separatefrom men and bond with women.3The lattertendency has generateda sexual ideologybest describedas neo-Victorian.It regardsheterosexual relations as moreor less synonymouswith rape, on the groundsthat male sexualityis by definitionpredatory and sadistic:men are exclusively"genitally-oriented" (a phrasethat is alwaysused pejoratively) and uninterestedin lovingrelationships. Female sexuality,in contrast,is definedas tender, nonviolent,and not necessarilyfocused on thegenitals; intimacy and physicalwarmth are moreimportant to us thanorgasm. The earlypre-lesbian separatists argued that celibacy was a reasonablealternative to sleepingwith men, and some suggestedthat the whole idea of a compellingsexual drive was a male inventiondesigned to keepwomen in theirplace; women

3 For a lucidexposition of thisdistinction I am indebtedto Alice Echols' paper,"Cultural Feminism: Feminist Capitalismand the Anti-PornographyMovement." Versionsof thispaper will be publishedin a futureissue of Social Textand in theforthcoming anthology on feminismand sexuality,The Powers ofDesire, ed. Ann Snitow, ChristineStansell, and Sharon Thompson,to be publishedin 1983 by MonthlyReview Press.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 Willis didn'tneed sex, and men's lustwas less forpleasure than for power.4 In short,to theneo- Victoriansmen are beasts who are only afterone thing,while womenare nice girlswho wouldjust as soon skipit. The inescapableimplication is thatwomen who professto enjoy sex withmen, especiallypenile-vaginal intercourse itself, are liarsor masochists;in either case theyhave chosen (or been forced)to be victimsand to upholdan oppressivesystem. Nor are lesbiansautomatically exempt from criticism; gay womenwhose sexual proclivities do not conformto the approved femininestereotype are assumed to be corruptedby heterosexism. Thoughneo-Victorianism has been mostmilitantly promoted by lesbianseparatists, in modifiedform - i.e., allowingthat men (some menat least) can changetheir ways and be good lovers- it has also had wide appeal forheterosexual feminists. (Conversely, lesbians have been amongits loudest critics; this is nota gay-straightsplit.) Its mostpopular current expressionis theanti-pornography movement, which has seized on pornographyas an all- purposesymbol of sex thatis genitally-oriented,hence male, hence sadisticand violent, while invokingthe concept of "erotica" as code forsex thatis gentle,romantic, relation- ship-oriented- in a word,feminine. Clearly, this conventional view of femaleas opposed to male sexualityis consistentwith many women's subjectiveexperience. Indeed, there are probablyfew women who don't identifywith it to some degree.But to takethat experience at face value is to ignoreits context:a patriarchalsociety that has systematicallyinhibited femalesexuality and defineddirect, active physical desire as a male prerogative.Feminist neo-Victorianshave made the same mistake- only withthe sexes reversed- as male libertarianswho criticizefemale sexual behavior while adopting stereotypical male sexuality as the standardfor judging sexual healthand happiness.In theprocess they have actively reinforcedthe largersociety's taboos on women's genitalsexuality. From a conservative perspective,a woman who has aggressivegenital desires and acts on themis "bad" and "unwomanly"; fromthe neo-Victorianperspective she is "brainwashed" and "male- identified." Overtlyor implicitly,many feministshave argued that sexual coercion is a more importantproblem for women than sexual repression.In thelast few years,the women's movementhas increasinglyemphasized violence against women as a primary- if notthe primary- concern.While sexual violence, coercion,and harassmenthave always been feministissues, earlierfeminist analyses tended to regardphysical force as one of several ways thatmen insurewomen's complianceto a sexist system,and in particularto their subordinatewife-and-mother role. The mainfunction of sexual coercion,in thisview, is to curbwomen's freedom,including their sexual freedom.Rape and thetacit social tolerance of itconvey the message that simply by being sexual, women are "provocative"and deserve punishment,especially if theystep out of theirplace (the home) or transgresssociety's definitionof the "good" (inhibited)woman. Similarly, sexual harassment on thestreet or on thejob, and exploitativesexual demandsby male "sexual revolutionaries,"punish women forasserting themselves, sexually and otherwise,in the world. The currentfeminist preoccupation with male violencehas a verydifferent focus. Rape and pornography,redefined as a formof rape, are regardednot as aspectsof a largersexist systembut as thefoundation and essenceof sexism,while sexual victimization is seen as the

4 The bestknown exponents of theseviews wereTi-Grace Atkinson, of theFeminists, and Dana Densmore,of Cell 16.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SexualRevolution 9 centralfact of women'soppression. Just as maleviolence against women is equatedwith male supremacy,freedom from violence is equatedwith women's liberation.5 From this standpointthe positive aspect of freedom- freedomfor women to act - is at besta secondaryconcern, and freedom for women to assertan activegenital sexuality is, bythe logicof neo-Victorianism,a contradiction in terms. Whateverits intent,the objective effect of feminists'emphasis on controllingmale sexuality- particularlywhen that emphasis is combinedwith a neo-Victorianview of women'snature and theconviction that securing women's safety from male aggression shouldbe thechief priority of the women's movement - is toundercut feminist opposition to thepro-family backlash. It providespowerful reinforcement for the right's efforts to manipulatewomen's fear of untrammeledmale sexuality,thus intimidating women into stiflingtheir own impulsestoward freedom in orderto clingto whatlittle protection the traditionalroles still offer. The convergenceof neo-Victorianand pro-family ideology is moststriking in therecent attempts by so-called "feminists for life" to argue that abortion is "violenceagainst women" and a way formen to escaperesponsibility for their sexual behavior.While this argument did not come from within the feminist movement but from anti-abortionpacifists seeking to justify their position to feminists, itis perfectlyconsistent withneo-Victorian logic. No tendencyin organized feminism has yetadvocated outlawing abortion,but one does occasionallyhear the argument that feminists should spend less energydefending abortion and more on educating women to understand that the real solution to unwantedpregnancy is to stopsleeping with men.6 Neo-Victorianshave also underminedfeminist opposition to the rightby equating feminismwith their own sexual attitudes, in effect reading out of the movement any woman whodisagrees with them. Since their notion of proper feminist sexuality echoes convention- al moraljudgments and the anti-sexual propaganda presently coming from the right, their guilt-mongeringhas beenquite effective. Many feminists who are aware that their sexual feelingscontradict the neo-Victorian ideal have lapsed into confused and apologetic silence. No doubtthere are also thousandsof women who have quietly concluded that if this ideal is feminism,then feminism has nothingto do withthem. The resultis widespreadapathy, dishonesty,and profounddisunity in a movementfaced with a determinedenemy that is threateningitsvery existence.

5The followingis a good example of this kindof thinking:" . . . if we are going to destroythe effectsof pornographyin our lives . . . We musteach be able to visualize on a grandscale what it is thatwe want for ourselvesand forour society. . . Would you trynow to thinkof whatit would be liketo live in a societyin which we are not,every minute, bombarded with sexual violence?Would you tryto visualize whatit would be like to go to the movies and not see it, to be able to walk home and not be afraidof it ... If we set thatas our goal and demandnothing less, we will notstop fighting until we've achievedit." - KathleenBarry, "Beyond Pornogra- phy:From Defensive Politics to Creatinga Vision," in Take Back The Night:Women on Pornography,ed. Laura Lederer(Morrow, 1980), p. 312. 6 The June,1981, issue of thefeminist newspaper off our backs publishedtwo lettersto theeditor on thistheme. One of the writers,while affirmingher unequivocal stand in favorof legal abortion,protests, "Why are we fightingso hardto make it 'safe' to fuckwith men? . . . Whydon't we focuson eliminatingthe need forabortion and birthcontrol?" The otherletter states, "Compulsory pregnancy results from compulsory penetration . . So I'm gettingimpatient to know when we will really take controlover our bodies and not let ourselves be penetrated?"and goes on to assert"the inescapablefact that since I did not allow men to have controlover my body, I could not thenturn around and claim controlover my baby's body."

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 Willis

The foregoingsuggests that feminists are at a theoreticalimpasse. If a feministpolitics thatadvocates restrictionson male sexualityleads inexorablyto the sexual repressionof womenand thestrengthening of anti-feministforces, such a politicsis obviouslyuntenable. But how can women supportsexual freedomfor both sexes withoutlegitimizing the most oppressiveaspects of male sexual behavior?I believe our hope forresolving this dilemma lies in reexaminingcertain widely shared assumptionsabout sex, male versus female sexuality,and the meaningof sexual liberation. The philosophyof the"sexual revolution"as we knowit is an extensionof liberalism:it definessexual freedomas thesimple absence of external restrictions - laws andovert social taboos- on sexual informationand activity.Since mostpeople acceptthis definition, there is widespreadagreement that we are alreadya sexuallyemancipated society. The easy availabilityof casual sex, the virtuallack of restrictions(at least for adults) on sexual informationand sexuallyexplicit material, the accessibility (for adults again) of contracep- tion,the legalizationof abortion,the proliferationof massage parlorsand sex clubs, the ubiquityof sexual imagesand referencesin themass media,the relaxation of taboosagainst "deviant" sexual practices- all are regularlycited as evidencethat this culture has largely overcomeits anti-sexual history. At thesame time,sexual liberalismhas clearlynot brought nirvana.Noting that "liberated" sexualityis oftendepressingly shallow, exploitative, and joyless, manymen as well as womenhave concluded that sexual liberation has beentried and foundwanting, that it is irrelevantor even inimicalto a seriousprogram for social change. This is a superficialview. In the firstplace, thissociety is farfrom endorsing, even in principle,people's rightto consensualsexual relations,of whateversort they prefer, as a basic liberty.(Skeptics are invitedto imaginepublic reactionto a proposedconstitutional amendmentguaranteeing freedom of sexual association.) There is strongand stubborn resistanceto legalizing- letalone acceptingas sociallyand morallylegitimate - all sexual acts between consentingadults; childrenhave no recognizedsexual rightsat all, and adolescentsvirtually none.7 But thebasic problemwith this dismissal of sexualfreedom as a validpolitical issue is thatit focuses on thequantity and varietyof sexual activity, rather than thequality of sexual experience.Political opposition to restrictivesexual mores is ultimately based on the premisethat a gratifyingsexual life is a humanneed whose denial causes unnecessaryand unjustifiedsuffering. Certainly, establishing people's rightto pursue sexual happinesswith a consentingpartner is a preconditionfor ending that suffering. Yet as most of us have had occasion to discover,it is entirelypossible to "freely" participatein a sexual act and feelfrustrated, indifferent, or even repelled.From a radicalstandpoint, then, sexual liberationinvolves not only the abolitionof restrictionsbut the positive presence of social and psychologicalconditions that foster satisfying sexual relations.And fromthat stand- point, this cultureis still deeply repressive.Most obviously,sexual inequalityand the resultingantagonism between men and women constitutea devastatingbarrier to sexual happiness.I will argue in additionthat sexual liberalismnotwithstanding, most children's

7 In theongoing debate over "the epidemicof teenagepregnancy" and whetherit is bestdealt with by providing teenagerswith contraceptives or givingthem lectures on chastity,birth control advocates have arguedthat access to contraceptiondoes not increaseteenage sexual activity.So faras I know, no "responsible" organizationhas dared to suggestthat adolescents have sexual needs and should have the rightto satisfythem.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sexual Revolution 11 upbringingproduces adults with profoundlynegative attitudes toward sex. Under these conditions,the relaxation of sexual restrictionsleads people to trydesperately to overcome theobstacles to satisfactionthrough compulsive sexual activityand preoccupationwith sex. The emphasison sex thatcurrently permeates our public life- especiallythe enormous demand for sexual advice and therapy- attestsnot to our sexual freedombut to our continuingsexual frustration. It is in this contextthat we need to examine the male sexual patternfeminists have protested- the emphasison conquestand dominance,the tendencyto abstractsex from love and social responsibility.Sexual liberalismhas allowed many men to assert these patternsin ways thatwere once sociallytaboo, and to imposethem on reluctantwomen. But to concludefrom this fact that male sexual freedomis inherentlyoppressive is to make the uncriticalassumption that men findpredatory, solipsistic sexual relationssatisfying and inherentlypreferable to sex withaffection and mutuality.As I have noted,some feminists arguethat male sexualityis naturallysadistic. Others grant that men's predatorytendencies are a functionof sexism, but assume thatthey are a simple, directexpression of men's (excessive) freedomand power,the implication being that anyone who has theopportunity to dominateand use otherpeople sexuallywill of course wantto take advantageof it. This assumptionis open to seriousquestion. If one paysattention to whatmen conscious- ly or unwittinglyreveal about theirsexual attitudes- in theirfiction and confessional writing(see Portnoy'sComplaint and its epigoni), in theirpolitical polemics (see George Gilder'sSexual Suicide), in sociologicaland psychologicalstudies (see The Hite Reporton Male Sexualityor Lillian Rubin's Worldsof Pain), in everydayinteraction with women - thepicture that emerges is farmore complicated and ambiguous.Most men,in fact,profess to wantand need mutualsexual love, and oftenbehave accordingly, though they have plenty of opportunityto do otherwise.Many men experienceboth tenderand predatorysexual feelings,toward the same or differentwomen, and findthe contradiction bewildering and disturbing;others express enormous pain over their inability to combine sex withlove. Often men's impulsesto coerce and degradewomen seem to express not a confidentassumption of dominancebut a desireto retaliatefor feelings of rejection,humiliation, and impotence:as manymen see it, theyneed womensexually more than women need them,an intolerable imbalance of power.8Furthermore, much male sexual behaviorclearly reflectsmen's irrationalfears that loss of dominancemeans loss of malenessitself, that their choice is to "act likea man" orbe castrated,to embracethe role of oppressor or be degradedto thestatus of victim. None ofthis is to denymen's objective social powerover women, their reluctance to give up thatpower, or theirtendency to blamewomen for their unhappiness rather than recognize thattheir own oppressivebehavior is largelyresponsible for women's sexual diffidence. My pointis onlythat the behavior that causes womenso muchgrief evidently brings men very littlejoy; on the contrary,men appear to be consumedwith sexual frustration,rage, and anxiety.With their compulsive assertions of powerthey continually sabotage their efforts to love and be loved. Such self-defeatingbehavior cannot, in any meaningfulsense, be describedas free.Rather it suggeststhat for all theunquestionable advantages men derive

8 ShereHite's The Hite Reporton Male Sexuality(Knopf, 1981) includesmany revealing comments from men on thisparticular theme: see herchapters on "Men's View of Women and Sex" and "Rape, PayingWomen for Sex, and Pornography."

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 Willis from "acting like a man" in a male-supremacistsociety, the price is repressionand deformationof spontaneoussexual feeling. The idea thatuntrammeled male sexualitymust inevitably be oppressiveis rootedin one of our most universalcultural assumptions: that the sexual drive itself(that is, "pure" passion unanchoredto the "higher" purposesof marriageand procreation)is inherently anti-social,separate from love, and connectedwith aggressive, destructive impulses. (In providinga modem,secular rationale for this idea, Freudreinforced - even as he demysti- fied- traditionalJudeo-Christian morality.) Sexual liberalshave promotedthe competing assumptionthat sex is simplya healthy,enjoyable biological function with no intrinsicmoral connotations.But this bland view notonly violates most people's sensethat their sexuality is notan isolated"function," that it is boundup withtheir emotions, their values, theirvery being;it also evades thequestion of sexual destructiveness.In practice,sexual liberals often refuseto acknowledgethe hostile, alienated, and exploitativeimpulses that attend contem- porarysexual "freedom." As a result,people who experiencetheir own sexualityas corruptedby those impulses, or who feelvictimized by the sexual behavior of others, tend to fall back on some versionof the old conservativeidea. Thereis, however,another possibility, advanced by a minorityof utopians,romantics, and culturalradicals: thatsexual desire,tenderness, and empathyare aspectsof a unified eroticimpulse; that the splitbetween sex and love and theattendant perversion of sexual desireinto exploitative, solipsistic lust are an artificialsocial product.This thesishas been most systematicallyand convincinglyelaborated in WilhelmReich's radical critiqueof Freud.9In essence, Reich arguedthat parental condemnation of infantilegenital desires and sensations- quiteharmless in themselves- forcesthe child to split(bad) sex from(good) affection.The childreacts to thisthwarting of its sexual expressionwith frustration, rage, and a desirefor revenge. These feelingsmodify the sexual impulseitself; thus the child's sexualitybecomes sadistic. If the sadistic feelingsare also forbiddenthey turn inward, producingguilt and masochism.People's guiltat theirown overtor repressedsadism, along withtheir observation of otherpeople's anti-socialbehavior, prompts the conviction that sex is inherentlydestructive. Yet thatconviction rests on a piece of circularreasoning: repres- sion createsthe destructiveness that is thencited as proofof theeternal need forrepression. Thus sexual repressionbecomes the self-perpetuating basis of a sadomasochisticpsycholo- gy'Owhich is in turncrucial to themaintenance of an authoritarian,hierarchical social order.

9 Reich's basic argumentis laid out in The Functionof the Orgasm, The Sexual Revolution,and The Mass Psychologyof Fascism. 10 Sadomasochismas a consensualsexual practicehas recentlybeen a subjectof controversyin the women's movement,and among anti-pornographyactivists "sadomasochism" has become somethingof a code wordfor any formof sexualitycondemned by neo-Victorianstandards. To avoid confusion,I wantto makeclear whatI mean by "sadomasochisticpsychology": an emotionalattitude consisting of the impulseto dominate,hurt, or revengeoneself on others,along witha reactiveguilt manifested in theimpulse to submitto othersand seek their protection,while embracingpain and sufferingas evidenceof one's moralpurity. In myview - and Reich's - thisattitude is the inneremotional analogue of social hierarchy.In a sense, psychicsadism and masochismare perversionsof theimpulses to assertive,autonomous activity and emotionalgiving, respectively - impulsesthat are inevitablycorrupted by social inequalityand coercion. Fromthis perspective, sadomasochism is a universalcultural attitude, expressed in a myriadof sexual and non- sexual, overtand unconscious,acted and fantasied,public and private,harmful and harmlessways. The neo- Victorianattitude, compounded of sentimentalizedfeminine eroticism and punitivemoralism, is itselfrooted in sadomasochism.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sexual Revolution 13

Reich contendedthat people withan anti-sexualupbringing tend to upholdestablished authority- even whenthe practical conditions for rebellion exist - because thatauthority fulfillsseveral functions: it reinforces people's innercontrols over their sadistic impulses and protectsthem from the uncontrolledsadism of others;it invitespeople to expresssadistic feelingsvicariously by identifyingwith authority; and itpermits people to ventthose feelings directlyon whoeveris below themin thesocial hierarchy.In thisway theanger that should inspiresocial rebellionis transformedinto a conservativeforce, impelling people to submit masochisticallyto theiroppressors while bullyingtheir "inferiors." Yet even forruling classes, Reich maintained,power is at best a substitutefor genuine fulfillment. In my view, Reich's conceptof a basic eroticunity shattered by genitalrepression is fundamentalto a feministanalysis and theonly hypothesis wholly consistent with a feminist sexual politics. I have triedto show how effortsto controlmale sexualityundermine women's strugglefor freedom and equality,and vice versa. To take the argumenta step further,if the sexual impulseis intrinsicallyselfish and aggressive,there are two possible explanationsfor why men's sexuality,far more than women's, has displayedthese charac- teristics.One is thatsexual desire,per se, is inherentlymale; thepitfalls of thisidea have been discussed at length.The otheris thatwomen have simplynot been allowed to be as selfishand exploitativeas men;to adoptthis notion puts feminists in theposition of agreeing withconservatives that liberating women fromthe femininerole wold destroythe social cementthat keeps civilizationgoing. If, on the otherhand, sexual destructivenesscan be seen as a perversionthat both reflects and perpetuatesa repressivesystem, it is possibleto envisiona coherentfeminist politics in which a commitmentto sexual freedomplays an integralpart. If we acceptthe premise that parents, by rejectingtheir children's genitality, atomize the eroticimpulse and directinfantile sexuality into a sadisticmode, the source of the difference between"masculine" and "feminine" sexualpatterns seems clear. Whileboys are permit- ted,indeed encouraged, to incorporatetheir sadistic impulses into their sexual identitiesand to expressthem in sociallyapproved ways, girls' aggressionis no moretolerated than their genitality.Like men, women experiencea split between lust and love, but the lustful componentof theirsexuality is subjectedto severeinhibition. Women who do notsuppress theirlustful feelings altogether - or sublimatethem into disembodiedromanticism or motherlove - usually feel freeto expressthem only in the relativelysafe and socially validatedcontext of marriageor a quasi-maritalcommitment. Thus what looks likewomen's superiorability to integratesex and love is only a morehidden form of alienation.

III

I wantto argue, then,that male and femalechildren develop masculineand feminine sexual psychologiesthorough a systematic(though largely unconscious) process of parental intimidation,in whichsexual repressionand sexismfunction symbiotically. My argument assumesthat the most congenial context for this process is the "ideal" patriarchalnuclear family,in whichthe parents provide a traditionalmodel of sexual rolesand attitudestoward sexuality,and dispensestrict but lovingparental discipline. Just as the new rightcharges, feminism,women in theworkforce, sexual liberalism,divorce, single parenthood, and the weakeningof parentalauthority destabilize and threatento underminethe process of "nor- mal" sexual characterformation. Class, racial, and ethnicdifferences in familyarrange-

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 Willis mentsand sexual moresalso affectthis process, producing distinctive variations in sexual roles and attitudes.But despite culturalchanges and subculturalvariations, the basic ingredientsof therepressive symbiosis remain. The firstis male supremacyand itspsychic concomitants,masculine and feminineidentity. The second is an underlyingnegative attitudetoward genitality, often hidden behind a surfaceacceptance. The finalrequirement is a culturethat, for all theinstitutional weaknesses of thecontemporary family, is stillfirmly committedto the ideology and practiceof familialism."Which is to say thatthe great majorityof babies and youngchildren depend primarily on one or bothparents for love and materialsustenance, and are subjectto virtuallyunlimited parental control. To understandhow sexism and sexual repressionconverge in the child's mind, it is necessary,in my view, to rethinktwo Freudianconcepts that most feminists have either rejectedor interpretedin purelysymbolic terms - castrationanxiety and penisenvy. My contentionhere is thatchildren subjected to the threesocial conditionsI've enumerated developa quiteliteral belief in thereality or threatof an attackon theirgenitals as pleasure- givingorgans, as well as an artificialvaluation of thepenis as an indicatorof social power and worth.12From infancy children absorb two setsof messagesabout their sexual organs. As soon as theydiscover genitaldesire and pleasure, theylearn thatsuch feelingsare forbidden.Masturbation and interestin theirown, theirparents' or otherchildren's genitals provokesparental anxiety, displeasure, perhaps outright prohibition. Their frustrated desire thenexcites and mergeswith aggressive, vengeful feelings and fantasiesthat are even more taboo; thustheir infantile experience of genitalityis thoroughlypermeated with a sense of danger.Meanwhile, they have been learning- by observingthe behavior of theirparents, theirsiblings, and theworld at large- aboutthe social differencesbetween the sexes. At some point,they come to understandthat there are two classes of people, one superiorand dominant,one inferiorand subordinate,and thatthey belong in one categoryor theother. Perhapssimultaneously, perhaps not, they discover that the two classes are distinguishedby thepresence or absence of thepenis. It seems entirelyreasonable that children's efforts to piece togetherall thisdisturbing information about sex and gendershould lead themto the terribleconclusion that girls have been physicallymutilated and sociallydevalued for bad sexual desires,and thatboys riskbeing punishedfor their badness in similarfashion.

" By familialismI mean a social systemin which parentsare legallyobliged to supportand care fortheir biologicalor adoptedchildren, and legallyauthorized (as well as sociallyenjoined) to discipline them. In addition, parentshave whatamounts to propertyrights in theirchildren, which can be abrogatedonly if theyviolate their parentalobligations in some egregiousway, or by theirown consentto adoption.(Obviously, specific parental rightsand obligationsdiffer for fathers and mothers,but thesecan vary withoutdirectly challenging the basic premisesof familialism.)To a lesserextent, other relatives are presumedto have rightsin and responsibilitiesto children.But in a familialistsystem, the communityas a whole assumes almostno responsibilityfor children's welfare.Thus childrenwho have no parents,poverty-stricken parents, unloving, abusive, or incompetentparents are definedas misfitsand social burdens;though the state may grudgingly dole out moneyto keep themalive, they have littlechance of findingan alternativesource of love or security.Most people acceptfamilialism as naturaland unchangeable.In particular,it is widelyassumed to be a factof humannature that people will make a reliable commitmentonly to theirown biologicalchildren, or at anyrate to children,biological or adopted,who "belong" to themexclusively. 12 Feministtheorists who agree on the importanceof female "castration" as a determinantof feminine psychologyhave tended to adopt a Lacanian perspective,attributing significance to the phallus as cultural metaphor,rather than the penis as anatomicalfact. See especiallyJuliet Mitchell, Psychoanalysis and Feminism (Random House, 1974), and Gayle Rubin, "The Trafficin Women," in Towardan Anthropologyof Women, ed. Rayna R. Reiter(Monthly Review Press, 1975).

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sexual Revolution 15

This perceivedcatastrophe drastically alters the child's relationto theworld. The child alreadyknows that its parents have thefearful power to depriveit of love, protection,even life, but thatknowledge is typicallyleavened by confidencein the parents' love. The apparentevidence of femalecastration convinces the child, far more effectively than normal parentaldiscipline could do, thateven themost loving parents are willingto use theirpower in a trulyterrifying way. This in turnsuggests to the child thatits badness mustbe utter depravity;the otherlogical possibility- thatthe parentsare not reallyloving at all, but capriciously,monstrously cruel - is too frighteningto contemplate.The childmay at first denythe evidence, or itsfull import, or itsirrevocability, but eventually the bad news sinks in and becomes a traumaticblow to the child's lingeringhopes of beatingthe system.In acceptingthe awfultruth, the child undergoesa kindof conversionto theparents' sexual values. Afterthat, though he or she may still rebel, it will be with a sense of moral illegitimacy. Since thechild's sexual desiresdo notgo away, butcontinue to evoke anxietyand guilt, itsonly choice is to repressthe whole complex of feelings, especially the traumatic discovery with which they are connected; this ensures that the infantileinterpretation of sexual differencewill remainimpervious to rationalcorrection. But theimpact of thetrauma, and thedegree of sexual repressionit engenders,are notthe same forboth sexes. For one thing, theirearlier experience has been different:from the beginning, girls' sexual and aggressive impulsesare restricted more severely. In addition,there is an enormousemotional difference betweenfear of mutilationand theconviction that one has alreadybeen mutilated.The boy's fearof castrationis softenedby theknowledge that so farhe has been bad and gottenaway withit; thegirl imagines that her defiance has provokedterrible retribution. The boy fearsa punishmentthat, bad as it is, is specificand limited;the girl's speculationon whatmight happento her if she persistsin incurringparental wrath is limitedonly by her imagination and capacityfor terror. The boy feelsimpotent, humiliated by his parents'ability to frighten him intosubmission; the girl suffers,in addition,the farmore devastating humiliation of consignmentto an inferiorclass. Furthermore,her terror and humiliationare compounded by otherintensely powerful emotions: violation, grief, despair. The children'ssubsequent experience will reinforcethese sexual differences.The boy will see thatwithin prescribed limits, he can safelyexpress his "bad" impulsestoward womenoutside the family, with greater or lesserfreedom depending on thewomen's social status.Given thisoutlet, his fearwill actuallystimulate his sexual aggression:by "acting like a man" he can continuallyassure himselfthat he is not a woman, while maintaining vigilantcontrol over these castrated beings who mustsurely hate him and covethis precious organ. The girl,in contrast,will observethat male power oftenexpresses itself in sexual hostilityand aggression;she will see thatmen punishrebellious women withcontempt, rejection,and violence. When she grasps the conceptof rape she will understandit as a reenactmentof her original violation. All thiswill add to herterror and give itconcrete form. In the interestof survival she must at all costs suppressher bitterness,hatred, envy, vengefulness,and predatorylust and accepther subordination. She mustdesperately direct her energiestoward being good. The castrationtrauma can be seen as the pivotal event of an ongoing process of acculturationin whichparents prepare their children to "freely" embracea masculineor femineidentity - thatis, to see conventionalsexual behaviorand attitudesas the only tenablealternative and to repressfeelings that do not fitthe mold. In large part,parents

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 Willis accomplishthis simply by actingout their own masculineand feminine patterns in relationto thechild. That parentsunconsciously assume toward their children their entire complex of patriarchallyconstructed attitudes toward each sex would explainthe common observation thatin relatingto a child of the oppositesex, heterosexualparents undercut their sexual prohibitionswith covert seductiveness, while in relatingto a child of the same sex, they augmentthe prohibitionswith covert hostility based on competitivenessand, no doubt, defensesagainst forbidden homosexual feelings. Since the parentshave internalizedthe culturalatomization of the erotic,their seductiveness - splitoff from acceptably sexless parentallove - will have a predatoryaspect, accentuated by thepower differential between adultand child. This configurationsuggests a particularview of anotherFreudian construction, the Oedipuscomplex. Though children undoubtedly feel a spontaneouserotic attraction to their parents(especially, given the presentsystem of childrearing,their mothers), there is no reasonto believethat intense, exclusive heterosexual desire for one parentand jealous hatred of theother necessarily follow, even forboys, whileFreud himself acknowledged that the Oedipus complexin girlsrequired further explanation. On thecontrary, it seems likelythat parentsinstigate the Oedipal triangle,encouraging the opposite-sexchild's fantasieswith theirseductiveness (while at the same time theirdisapproval inhibits the child's sexual explorationsin general), and provokingor exacerbatingsame-sex rivalry with their own hostile,competitive behavior. If thecastration trauma terrorizes children into foreclosing certain psychic possibilities (acceptingsexual desire as good and natural,seeing male-femaledifference as a morally neutralfact), the function of theOedipal situation,as I will tryto show, is to channeltheir responseto the traumain socially approveddirections, beginning, most obviously, with heterosexuality.Under "normal" circumstancesthe child, in copingwith the desire, fear, rage,guilt, and disappointmentthe triangle generates, will eventually come to identifywith theprescribed sexual roles because theyrepresent the path of least resistance,offering the leastrisk of punishment, the most relief from guilt, and the most compensatory satisfactions. If somethinggoes wrong(if, for instance,a child remainsunconvinced that conformity offersany rewardsworth having; if disappointmentwith the opposite sex parentis too overwhelming,or converselythe attractionis too strong;if fearof the same-sexparent is excessiveor insufficient;ifthe parents are truly cruel or neglectful;if actual incest occurs) he or she maybalk at thefinal giving over to conventionalmasculine/feminine identity. In adult life the recalcitrantchild may preferhomosexuality or some otherform of "deviance"; develop a sexual personalitydefined by overtemotional conflict and "maladjustment";or withdrawfrom the sexual arenaaltogether. In practice,of course,these choices overlap and forma continuum,from a decisivecommitment to masculinityor femininity,with more or less successfulrepression of conflictingdesires, to totalrefusal, generally disastrous to the individualconcerned, to be conscriptedinto the sexual culture. My intentionhere is to outline the paradigmatic"successful" workingout of the Oedipus complex forboth sexes. The discussionthat follows assumes two heterosexual parentsin thehome, with the mother as primarycaretaker - stillthe situation of most young children.Logically, familiesthat diverge significantly from this structure should produce people witha wider, less predictablerange of sexual psychologies,a prospectof major concernto pro-familyconservatives. But to see thisfactor in perspective,two crucial points must be kept in mind. First, sexual acculturationhas never been more than relatively

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SexualRevolution 17 successful,even in societiesenforcing rigid adherence to thetraditional patriarchal family form.However thorough the imposition of psychicrepression and guilt, "illicit" sexual desireand rage continually threaten tobreak through, which is whyinternal controls must be reinforcedby externalsocial sanctions.Equally important, individual families and even "deviant"familial subcultures do notexist in a vacuum.They are situated in a dominant culturethat affects both parental behavior and attitudes and children's perceptions of how familiesare supposedto work,as well as a culturalhistory that has shapedthe parents' emotionalmakeup. Thus for a childbrought up by a singleparent with a conventionalsexual identityin a conventionalenvironment, a fantasy of themissing parent may in crucial respectssubstitute for the actual person; even if the child has nevermet the absent parent, andif the caretaking parent does not have lovers on which the child's imagination can focus, he orshe may construct a workable fantasy out of parental and social messages about what mothersor fathersare like. Conversely,in a standardnuclear family whose emotional undercurrentsare greatlyat oddswith its facade of normality,the child's experience and consequentpath may be farless typical than that of the child from a "brokenhome." What I meanto suggestis thatwhile my paradigm is atbest an approximationofthe experience of mostchildren, the psychology perpetuated by the"ideal" Oedipuscomplex defines the sexualnorm. Though this norm - an abstractiontobegin with - is increasinglyattacked anderoded, it still exerts a controllinginfluence on our social mores and, for most of us, our unconsciouspredispositions. In fact, I wouldargue that people whose childhood experience departedso radicallyfrom the paradigm that it has no emotionalresonance for them cannot functionin thisculture, even as deviants. In the "normal"case, then,the mother's role in thefamily insures that from the beginningboys and girls get different signals about sex. To theboy, the mother conveys a complexand contradictory message of affection, seduction, and rejection. In thecontext of hermaternal love and his infantiledependence her seductiveness, with its admixtureof aggression,makes her an embodimentof eroticpower that is bothirresistible and scary; at thesame time her disapproving rejection of his sexual response frustrates and confuses him. His father,on the other hand, is moreclearly censorious, more emotionally distant (since he is less involvedin thechild's day-to-day care), and much more powerful: the mother, so potenta figurein relationto theboy, is obviouslysubject to thefather's control. It is also clearthat father has claimed mother for himself, and that the sexual prohibitions heenforces on therest to thefamily do notapply to him. The boy'sdiscovery of his mother's"castration" puts all thisin a newlight: mother belongsto the deprived class, therefore she must envy and hate his maleness. This explains boththe predatory element in her desire - whichhe interpretsnow as a potentialattack on hispenis, stemming from a wishto appropriate the prized object - and,in part, her sexual rejection.He is outragedat his mother'sbetrayal in condemningthe "badness" she has encouraged- andof which she is equallyguilty, as herpenisless condition attests. But he also understandsher behavior as a meansof protectingboth of themfrom his father. For fatheris obviouslyresponsible for mother's punishment, and by far the greater threat to his ownmanhood. Inresponse to this threat, the boy represses his guilty desire and his rage at his father. He acceptshis father's moral authority and adopts him as a model,a strategythat is at oncea formof appeasementand of acceptablecompetition. But he can allow himselfto feel considerableanger at his less dangerous mother. By deprecatingher (she is afterall "onlya

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 Willis woman") he takesrevenge, reduces the danger still further, comforts himself for his loss, and compensatesfor the humiliation of havingto submitto his father.Yet he also idealizes her:out of guiltand theneed to renouncetheir sexual bond (and also as a wayof negating his father'svictory), he denies her seductiveattitude and transformsher into the pure woman who rejectsmen's bad impulsesfor their own good. The motheris moreunambiguously hostile to herdaughter's sexuality. Besides seeing thegirl as a rivaland a doublytaboo sexual object,she feelsfreer to exercisepower over a (mere)girl. We can also assumethat she identifiesmore with a daughter,and thatthe girl's naivedesire threatens to undermineher own hard-woninhibitions. Finally, it is mother'sjob to enforcethe sexual double standard.The likelyresult is thatthe girl will blameher mother forher mutilation, while her father's seductiveness gives riseto thehope thathe, as thereal authorityin the family,will rescindthe punishment.Disillusioned with mother (her first love), she divertsher passion to fatherand imaginesthat he will side withher because she is willingto be "bad" withhim in defianceof spitefulmother (who, as thegirl sees it, wants herchild to shareher own deprivedstate). Also, since she has notyet accepted her inferior statusas irrevocableor deserved,she believes thatshe is worthyof herfather, while her motheris clearlynot his equal. Her momentof awfultruth comes whenshe understandsthat her fatherwill neitherrestore her penis nor choose her over her mother.Though he has encouragedher badness, he nonethelesscondemns it and standswith his wife,the good woman,against her. She realizes now thatthe powerful man she countedon to protecther may insteadabandon or turnon her. Withthis realization, her perception of the aggressiveness in her father's desire translates intoa threatof rape, or even death.With horror and panicshe imaginesthat having alienated hermother and failedto winher father she is an outcast,alone, powerless, contemptible. Her only recourseis to devote herselfto appeasingher parents in the hope of regainingsome sense of a secureplace in theworld, and, despiteher humiliating demotion, some kindof self-respect.She adoptsher mother's sexual righteousness, not only out of fear and guiltbut because she has begunto believethat her mother punished her out of love, to warnher and keepher from inciting her father to rape and murder. On one levelthe girl's loyalties revert to a pre-Oedipalpattern, in which fatherwas if anythingan unwelcomerival formother's attention:she sees herselfand hermother as fellowvictims of male power.Yet she does not completelysuppress her desire forher father,who continuesto be seductiveas well as rejecting.Rather, she repressesthe self-willed aggression at thecore ofher "badness" and, again takingher mother as a model,expresses her sexual responsein an indirect,muted - i.e., feminine- way. Thus she propitiatesher father while simultaneouslyplacating and competingwith her mother. In thegirl's case, themost dangerous emotion is nother Oedipal desire,in itself,but her subversivewish to rejecther female destiny. She can admit(much more readily than the boy can admitof his mother)that she is sexuallyattracted to her fatherand craves his sexual approval;what she cannotafford to recognizeis herfury at notgetting satisfaction, at being forcedinto passivity with the threat of violence.Like theboy, she is oftenable to expressa modicumof angerat mother,who is less powerfuland, she surmises,has alreadydone her worst;such angerusually takes the formof competitiveness,disparagement of mother's inferiorfeminine traits, and complaintsabout being dominated, unloved, or misunderstood. But it is a superficial,ambivalent anger, for the daughter'sdeepest feelings of rage and betrayalmust remain buried if she is to do whatshe has to do: be a woman.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sexual Revolution 19

For both sexes, the incentiveto identifywith the same-sex parentand embrace a conventionalsexual role is notonly fear of punishmentbut the prospect of psychic and social rewards.For theboy therewards are greater,more direct, and moreobvious. He willbe able to expresshis aggressiveimpulses, his needsfor both autonomy and power,in a wide range of non-sexualactivities in the largerworld (which activitiesand how wide a range will depend on his positionin the class and racial hierarchy,but his opportunitywill always exceed thatof womenin comparablesocial categories).He will have authorityover women, thepower to punishthem if they forget their place, and a gratifyingfeeling of superiority.He will have considerableleeway in demandingand takingsexual pleasure,which, however morallydubious, even in his own eyes, is nonethelessa prerogativeand an imperativeof manhood. For the girl,the male-dominatedworld outside the home promiseslittle in the way of power,material reward, or self-esteem.Direct, aggressive pursuit of sexual gratificationor personalpower over men is taboo. Given these strictures,the role of good woman has significantadvantages.'" It allows herto exercisea certainamount of powerby withholding sex and manipulatingmen's desire. It enables her to marry:with luck her husbandwill provideindirect access to theresources of the male world,a vicariousoutlet for her impulses to worldlyparticipation and power, disguisedsexual fulfillmentin the formof romantic ecstasy and (if she is really lucky) actual sexual satisfactionwithin permissible bounds. Marriagecarries with it the privilegeof motherhood,which will become her greatestand most socially legitimatesource of power, as well as a source of eroticpleasure. Finally, goodnessoffers her a meansto retrieveher shattered pride. If she is good, menwill respect her;in fact,she can claim moralsuperiority to menwith their animal urges. In thename of moralityshe can, if she chooses, crusadeagainst vice, bully"bad" women,and even make menfeel guilty- anothersocially acceptable way to ventaggression and exercisepower. Since thesexual formationsof womenand menare complementary,each sex to a large extentmeets the expectations (positive and negative,overt and repressed)of theother; the child'sexperience with the opposite-sex parent "works" whenapplied to otherheterosexual objects(which is why,just by "acting naturally,"each new generationof parentsrecreates thatexperience with its children).In adultlife, the masculineman displaces mostof his feelingsabout his motherto his relationswith other women, carrying with him the emotional contradictionsof his childhood. He experienceensures that women can do nothingright, that he will always feel cheated:sexual rejectionor reserveevokes theprimal disappointment, whileready acceptance (let alone activeseduction) revives the castration fear. To complicate matters,he assumes thatmarriage and procreationlegitimize his lust(father is allowed to fuckmother), yet to marrya womanand have childrenwith her defines her as good, hence sexuallytaboo. His unconsciousconfusions reinforced by social mores,he treats"good" womenwith "respect"; therage theirreserve provokes he directs- in theform of sexual predationand contempt- towardthe "bad" womenwho respondto him,thereby trans- gressingtheir prescribed role and challenginghis authority.He tends,in otherwords, to arrangehis sex lifeon theprinciple that he wouldn'twant to join anyclub thatwould have

13 Accordingly,this role is notequally available to all women:men of dominantclasses and raceshave typically regardedwomen of subordinateclasses and races as "bad" by culturaldefinition, and thereforefair game for sexual and economicexploitation. For an excellentanalysis of how black womenhave been systematicallydenied 'good woman" status,see Bell Hooks, Ain'tIa Woman:Black Womenand Feminism(South End Press, 1981).

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 Willis him as a member.When he marrieshe demandshis wife's sexual compliance,yet cannot tolerateany displayof "excessive" sexual enthusiasm,initiative, or self-assertion.Then, findingdomestic sex boringand his wife's "goodness' inhibiting,he sleeps with(or has fantasiesof) moreexciting women to whomhe need recognizeno loyaltyor commitment. He feelsguilty about his own "bad" desires,yet also proudof themsince theyconfirm his manhood.He considersthe "good" woman morallysuperior to himself,yet has a deep convictionthat all womenare secretlybad, thattheir goodness is a hypocriticalfacade. If he transgressesthe bounds of respectfulbehavior with the good woman,he rationalizesthat he could onlyget away withit because she was reallybad all along. At itsextreme this is the psychologyof the rapistand the wife-beater. The same doublebinds ensure that the woman's claim to goodness,hence her safety and legitimacy,is neversecure. In thefirst place, she knowson some level thather goodness is phony- thatdeep downshe is indeedlustful, angry, rebellious - and shefeels guilty about it. Thus she will oftenaccept thejudgment of the rapistor wife-beaterthat she somehow askedfor or deserved punishment. Furthermore, the requirements of goodness are contradic- tory.The good womanmust defer to men,do theirwill; she mustalso curbher sexual desire; yetpart of whatmen will is thatwomen not only sleep withthem but desire them. Her father wantedher to desirehim, but when she wenttoo far(and how farwas that?where did she crossthe line?) love turnedinto rejection and threat.As she growsup she will encounterthe same dilemma:the boys demandthat she be attractiveand sexy,but if she goes too farthey label hereasy; if,on theother hand, she goes too farin theother direction - too aloof, too indifferent- theycondemn her as a cold bitchor a sexual failure.In marriagethe good womanmust not refuse her husband but must not demand too much.Always she mustwalk theelusive line between being too good, thereforebad, and notgood enough.The line shifts withhistory and circumstance,the particular man or his particularmood; themore freedom womenachieve themore tenuous the line becomes. The anxietythis uncertainty provokes functionsactively as a meansof social control;women can neverstop trying to be better,to escape an inescapabletaint. Given thisimpossible situation, it is no wonderthat so many feministsare morepreoccupied with their fears of male violencethan with their hopes for sexual freedom.Indeed, women's quest for security- futileby the verynature of the system- notonly discourages women from demanding freedom but often moves themto defendrigid standards of sexualmorality and resistany blurring of the line between good and bad women.In doingso, theyshore up thevery system that punishes them. Finally, the only way womenwill ever breakout of thistrap is to destroythe associationbetween sex and badness. Sexual liberalshave triedto dismissthat association as an unenlightenedremnant of our puritanicalpast. But since the culturalunconscious cannot be erased by fiat,they have succeededmainly in damagingtheir credibility. In a sense,sexual liberalism creates its own backlash.Men scoffat theidea of thegood woman- and findthat they are terrifiedby the specterof thebad woman,self-willed, demanding, perhaps insatiable. Women try to be free - and end up beingpunished. Both sexes equatesexual freedom with a licenseto be bad - and feelguilty. The powerimbalance between the sexes remains.As a result,the symbiosis of sexismand sexualrepression continues to recreatea complexof patriarchalemotions that increasinglyconflict with our rational ideas and aspirationsand withthe actual conditions of our lives. It is in factthe social instabilityand psychologicaltensions this conflict produces thathave made people so receptiveto pro-familyideology. The rightproposes to resolvethe

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sexual Revolution 21 conflictby changingsocial realityto conformto our mostconservative emotions. Feminist politics,in contrast,often seem to embodythe conflictinstead of offeringan alternative solution.Nor is thisany wonder,if such a solutionmust include a fundamentaltransforma- tionin people's sexual psychology.Yet howeverdangerous and unchartedthe territory, it is preciselythis task thatwe mustsomehow begin to address. The firststep, I believe, is simplyto affirmthe validity, in principle,of sexual liberation as a feministgoal. This in itselfwill clarifymany confusions and contradictionsin current feministthinking, and indicatepractical political directions.For instance,my analysis suggeststhat crusading against pornographyas a symbolof male violence will impede feminismrather than advance it; thatfocusing primarily on issues of women's safety(like rape) maybe moreproblematic and less effectivethan focusing on issuesof women'ssexual freedom(like abortionrights); that it is importantfor feminists to defend people's (including men's) freedomto engage in consensual sexual activity,including acts we may find distasteful.In short,it is a losingproposition for feminists to competewith the right in trying to soothewomen' s fearsof sexual anarchy.We mustof courseacknowledge those fears and thelegitimate reasons for them, but our interest as feministsis to demonstratethat a law-and- orderapproach to sex can onlyresult in a drasticcurtailment of our freedom. In thelong run, we can win only if women (and men) want freedom(and love) more thanthey fear its consequences.

This content downloaded on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:26:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions