on the male obsession with anal sex.
the current prevalence of anal sex in pornography lends justification to the assumption of a collective obsession with the asshole. it is my belief that this obsession can be explained by psychoanalytical doxa and the success of feminism.
the holy grail of freudian psychoanalysis - the oedipus complex - is certainly susceptible to a certain amount of criticism. by relegating desire to the familial sphere, it resurrects the incest forbidden for the higher classes by the church and keeps sexuality within the family, thereby placing the responsibility for a productive, non-perverted sexuality in the familial sphere (foucault). moreover, in its rejection of non-oedipal desire, it uses force to inscribe the multidirectional desiring-machines in an oedipul framework, thereby severely limiting their revolutionary potential (deleuze). on a more pragmatic note, the oedipus complex is inherently misogynistic and fails to account for bisexuality. nonetheless, in an oedipalized culture, social repression enlists the family as an agent of psychic repression in service of the socius, thereby framing each individual as a corner of the oedipal triangulation (mommy-daddy-me) - the formation of the subject is interpellated as oedipal in nature, and in this way oedipus functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
the oedipus complex leads to the psychological assumption of one's own sex through a process that begins with an awareness of sexual difference and eventually leads to castration fear in boys and penis envy in girls. penis envy is connected to a rejection of the mother and a desire for the father, whereas castration fear leads to a refusal of subjection or indebtedness to other males. karen horney posited womb envy (a concept that gained new relevance with the recent case of thomas beatie) to balance the sexism inherent in freud's penis envy, suggesting penis eny may just be more visible due to the overall greater power wielded by men in society. it is here, i think, that we may find reasons for the current obsession with anal sex.
of course, social and economical equality of the sexes for now remains a fantasy - but our society is no longer grounded on the implicit inferiority of women. the penis is no longer a guarantee of social power, and the vagina has become an active phallic presence itself. in this framework, the vagina no longer signifies an absence that leads to fear of castration, but a presence that leads to fear of competition and needs be disavowed in order to reaffirm male superiority. this socio-economical development coincides (and is indubitably correlated) with the sexual liberation of women, who are now entitled to their own active sexuality. when the vagina is no longer defined as the absence of a penis, but as the presence of a powerful and enigmatic organ, it provokes anxiety rather than contempt.
anal sex is an effective means of suppressing this anxiety, for several reasons:
-it bears strong connotations of submission (to inflict pain is to subject), thereby reiterating male superiority.
-the anus is less enigmatic, hence less threatening than the vagina - for men have one themselves.
-anal sex is (perhaps wrongly) seen as less pleasurable for women than vaginal intercourse - so in the male imaginary, the female right to sexual pleasure is denied.
-our culture has an aversion towards everything wet, slimey and hairy - in kristeva's sense, wetware is abject. (which may be due to the association of wet and hairy with animality and our fascination with technology.) this is the reason women often shave their pubic hair or circumsise their outer labia - but it may just as well cause a rejection of the vagina altogether.
(disclaimer: before you exclaim: "i am not obsessed!" - not all particulars can be susbsumed under the general. in the same vein, not all anal pleasure need be based on domination. but the disproportion between the prevalence of anal sex in porn and the relative rarity of anal sex in private leads me to believe this collective obsession is at least partially founded on a male desire for dominance - which is certainly true for actors like max hardcore.)
(of course it might be that this obsession existed long before emancipation, but gained visibility in pornography only recently with the diminishing restrictions of the genre. but this would be a far more boring hypothesis.)
the holy grail of freudian psychoanalysis - the oedipus complex - is certainly susceptible to a certain amount of criticism. by relegating desire to the familial sphere, it resurrects the incest forbidden for the higher classes by the church and keeps sexuality within the family, thereby placing the responsibility for a productive, non-perverted sexuality in the familial sphere (foucault). moreover, in its rejection of non-oedipal desire, it uses force to inscribe the multidirectional desiring-machines in an oedipul framework, thereby severely limiting their revolutionary potential (deleuze). on a more pragmatic note, the oedipus complex is inherently misogynistic and fails to account for bisexuality. nonetheless, in an oedipalized culture, social repression enlists the family as an agent of psychic repression in service of the socius, thereby framing each individual as a corner of the oedipal triangulation (mommy-daddy-me) - the formation of the subject is interpellated as oedipal in nature, and in this way oedipus functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
the oedipus complex leads to the psychological assumption of one's own sex through a process that begins with an awareness of sexual difference and eventually leads to castration fear in boys and penis envy in girls. penis envy is connected to a rejection of the mother and a desire for the father, whereas castration fear leads to a refusal of subjection or indebtedness to other males. karen horney posited womb envy (a concept that gained new relevance with the recent case of thomas beatie) to balance the sexism inherent in freud's penis envy, suggesting penis eny may just be more visible due to the overall greater power wielded by men in society. it is here, i think, that we may find reasons for the current obsession with anal sex.
of course, social and economical equality of the sexes for now remains a fantasy - but our society is no longer grounded on the implicit inferiority of women. the penis is no longer a guarantee of social power, and the vagina has become an active phallic presence itself. in this framework, the vagina no longer signifies an absence that leads to fear of castration, but a presence that leads to fear of competition and needs be disavowed in order to reaffirm male superiority. this socio-economical development coincides (and is indubitably correlated) with the sexual liberation of women, who are now entitled to their own active sexuality. when the vagina is no longer defined as the absence of a penis, but as the presence of a powerful and enigmatic organ, it provokes anxiety rather than contempt.
anal sex is an effective means of suppressing this anxiety, for several reasons:
-it bears strong connotations of submission (to inflict pain is to subject), thereby reiterating male superiority.
-the anus is less enigmatic, hence less threatening than the vagina - for men have one themselves.
-anal sex is (perhaps wrongly) seen as less pleasurable for women than vaginal intercourse - so in the male imaginary, the female right to sexual pleasure is denied.
-our culture has an aversion towards everything wet, slimey and hairy - in kristeva's sense, wetware is abject. (which may be due to the association of wet and hairy with animality and our fascination with technology.) this is the reason women often shave their pubic hair or circumsise their outer labia - but it may just as well cause a rejection of the vagina altogether.
(disclaimer: before you exclaim: "i am not obsessed!" - not all particulars can be susbsumed under the general. in the same vein, not all anal pleasure need be based on domination. but the disproportion between the prevalence of anal sex in porn and the relative rarity of anal sex in private leads me to believe this collective obsession is at least partially founded on a male desire for dominance - which is certainly true for actors like max hardcore.)
(of course it might be that this obsession existed long before emancipation, but gained visibility in pornography only recently with the diminishing restrictions of the genre. but this would be a far more boring hypothesis.)
posted by dennis at
1:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home