Sex E-Book

Flávio Gikovate

• Herausgeber: MG Editores
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 214

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

Sex is one of the topics most spoken and written about. According to Gikovate, this is a sign that it is still poorly understood and far from a satisfactory resolution. As such, in this book he rethinks several myths and half-truths about sex and addresses controversial issues. Based on his believe that sex and love are two autonomous (and often antagonistic) impulses, Gikovate points out the strong association between sexuality and aggressiveness (especially in men). At the same time, he shows that desire and arousal are very different phenomena: while the first is elitist, based on elements of a consumer society that is almost out of control, the second is a democratic pleasure easily attainable by all. Gikovate proposes that we reconsider our current worshipping of desire, since it serves to valorise casual sex, preserve selfishness and promote emotional immaturity - things that decent people have been trying to free themselves of for the longest time.

Leseprobe

Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação (CIP)

(Câmara Brasileira do Livro, SP, Brasil)

Gikovate, Flávio

Sex / Flávio Gikovate ; [translation Alison Entrekin]. – São Paulo : MG Editores, 2011.

Título original: Sexo

ISBN 978-85-7255-097-0

1. Conduta de vida 2. Homens – Comportamento sexual 3. Mulheres – Comportamento sexual 4. Sexo (Psicologia) I. Título.

11-03986

CDD-155.3

Índice para catálogo sistemático:

1. Comportamento sexual : Aspectos psicológicos 155.3

No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the prior written permission of Summus Editorial unless such copying is expressly permitted by federal copyright law.

SEX

Flávio Gikovate

Translated by Alison Entrekin

SEX

Copyright © 2011 by Flávio Gikovate

All rights reserved by Summus Editorial

Translation: Alison Entrekin

Cover design: Alberto Mateus

Art and design: Crayon Editorial

MG Editores

Editorial departament:

Rua Itapicuru, 613 – 7º andar

05006-000 – São Paulo – SP

Brazil

Tel.: (55) (11) 3872-3322

Fax: (55) (11) 3872-7476

http://www.mgeditores.com.br

e-mail: [email protected]

Printed in Brazil

Digital edition: november 2012

ePub file produced by Simplíssimo Livros

I have been keenly observing developments in sexuality since 1966, the year I graduated from medical school. It is hard to imagine another period of time as short as the last few decades in which so many changes have taken place in the behaviour of entire populations. I saw the introduction of the contraceptive pill and the freedom movements that, in 1968, affected people all over the world and influenced the way of life of a whole generation of young people. Many of them, who were previously more conservative, began to use drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. More recently, there has been an enormous increase in alcohol consumption by young men and – especially – women. I am not ignoring facts with more positive consequences that have also taken place. One such example is the increasing number of young women who invest in their intellectual development in order to become independent professionals. I see casual erotic encounters – “hooking up” – between teenagers of the same social class and age group as a positive thing. I also appreciate certain changes in the sexual initiation of young men: many now prefer to remain chaste until their first relationship, a situation in which young women also tend to lose their virginity without feeling guilty or ashamed.

I do, however, think it is necessary to separate the things that have proven to be constructive from those that have had negative consequences. I watched the first stirrings of so-called sexual freedom, especially women’s. Women gained the freedom to display their bodies, stimulating the fascination of many men and the wrath of some. We believed that greater sexual freedom would bring society more peace and love – and fewer wars. It is not what happened.

More recently, I saw the revolution in sexual – and even romantic – customs introduced by the rising importance of the virtual world: the growth of the porn industry, young men’s fascination with all manner of visual stimuli, the tendency of many toward indolence and a lack of interest in studies and “real” girls. I see the extent to which couples’ sex lives have been influenced by what they see in porno films, and don’t view it favourably. On the other hand, masturbation has clearly gained a “dignity” that it was previously denied, which may lead to some interesting reflection.

The saddest thing for those who, like me, put faith in the prevalent ideals of the late 1960s and 1970s (so well documented by respected authors such as H. Marcuse and W. Reich, among others), is seeing that all these developments have only led to greater dissatisfaction for large portions of society. We are more and more depressed, unhappy, competitive, materialistic and consumerist. I’m not sure we can attribute the sadness that plagues us solely to what has taken place in the realm of sexuality. But it seems that the premise that sexual emancipation would lay the foundations for us to be happier and more solidary, better friends and more competent in matters of love, hasn’t proven to be correct in practice.

Ideals that do not work in practice should be abandoned, but it isn’t what generally happens. In fact, it is incredible that all these changes haven’t been accompanied by real shifts in the way most of us – including psychology professionals – think. Reality has evolved but theory hasn’t!

To this day, most people can’t, for example, separate sex from love and see that they are different impulses. We are taught that they are part of the same instinct and the belief remains when the facts point to the contrary, even in the minds of the highly educated. Few are the “porous” spirits capable of abandoning old notions, living with doubt and generating new ideas that better explain the facts. While it is already difficult for people to recognise sex and love as separate things, it seems it is even harder to see how sex is related to aggression. This difficulty remains even in the face of the most flagrant evidence, both biological (in the primitive world, more violent males were certainly more competent at copulating with females) and cultural (in so many languages, lewd terms designate maximum verbal violence).

I believe that knowledge should help improve quality of life, individual happiness and the consideration and pleasure we derive from interpersonal relations in general, especially more intimate ones. Beautiful theories that fall short of these objectives should be discarded and replaced with others that can help us develop knowledge that contributes to our well-being.

That is the reason for this book, which brings me back to the subject of my early studies. I consider this rewinding to be essential, since the consequences of our prior convictions have been so negative. Our so-called sexual freedom has ended up intensifying everything it was supposed to fight. We appear to be headed for an abyss. We need to muster up the humility and wisdom to see that it’s better to start over, hence such a broad-sounding title – sex. This is my intention.

I know how hard it is when we find ourselves face-to-face with a point of view that is vastly different from the one we are used to. I know how difficult it is to change our paradigms and that we tend to prefer reading things that correspond with our points of view. Nevertheless, I hope that you, dear reader, will indulge and accompany me in these reflections, which, in my view, may provide a new way of looking at sex. Although there are many publications out there, I think there is still much to be done before we can consider sex a well-resolved subject. My aim is to contribute to the discussion with a new perspective. It is a thorny, difficult subject, but I will try to set out my ideas as clearly and succinctly as possible.

SEX

My objective here is to start anew. I believe that ruminations on the subject of sex to date have taken some erroneous turns down dead-end roads. Well-resolved matters tend to be forgotten and aren’t discussed as often. We essentially fret over things that aren’t going so well. When we’re sick, we mostly think about how bad we feel and how to get better. When our health is restored we welcome it back with great pleasure (a negative pleasure, because it corresponds to the end of pain) and it goes back to being less relevant. Sickness is an important topic in our subjectivity, while health isn’t.

Sex has unique characteristics due to the fact that it is a positive pleasure; that is, it doesn’t require a prior discomfort in order to manifest. We can be doing nothing and suddenly feel the pleasant sensation of arousal. But sex is also cause for great worry. We doubt our sexual competence or ability to satisfy our partners and worry about whether or not we conform to society’s standards of beauty, frequency of sexual relations, the size of our sexual organs, etc.

And the list doesn’t stop here. We want to know if we are making the most of what is nowadays said to be life’s greatest pleasure. We want to know if others are doing better in the areas of seduction and sexual conquest, if it is important to have a range of experiences with a variety of partners, if we should masturbate as often as we do, if the pleasure we feel when touching certain parts of our bodies is “normal” or an indication of a fetish, if we should seek to live out our group sex fantasies in real life, and so on.

I know few people who are satisfied with their sex life, who don’t feel they are missing out on something by living as they do. The vast majority dream of things that are way out of reach: not all of the circumstances that lead to desire provide the conditions for it to be acted upon. In fact, few people are satisfied with what they have in all of the areas considered important by contemporary culture. Most complain about their physical appearance, their social and financial position, that they have too much (or too little) work, that they are aging and have to live with the external signs of it, as well as growing dietary, alcohol, and other restrictions.

This is an era in which more and more adults have childish character traits stemming from their difficulty dealing with frustration, setbacks and limitations. I’d say the hardest thing of all is coping with limitations and the fact that we weren’t born with everything. More than ever I am reminded of something Bertrand Russell once said (sadly, I have lost the original reference) to the effect that the only thing people don’t complain about not having enough of is common sense – which he considered the scarcest of attributes.

Sex has also taken similar paths and, as in other areas of life, what we do and the satisfaction we obtain from it are now quantitatively assessed. Most people are under the impression that others are enjoying more sexual pleasure than themselves and are satisfied with their sex lives. This is because few people like to feel outdone and many, as a result, exaggerate their own conquests. They know they’re lying, but others tend to believe them. This used to be common among teenagers, but it appears to have spread to all age groups. In this quest for eternal youth, in which ageing appears to be against the rules, we are regressing more and more and are be-coming adults with childish characteristics!

It is clear to me that we urgently need to go back to square one in our thinking about sexuality and hone our notions of life and the human condition. Our current way of thinking has produced very negative consequences and the number of depressed, frustrated, unhappy people – even among more privileged sections of society – is growing daily. This is because we live in a world of comparisons in which everyone looks at those who have more and are saddened by what they don’t have – instead of being thankful for what they do have. No one’s glass is “half full”, rather, they are all “half empty”.

I am not overlooking the correlation between what goes on in the area of sexuality and what people experience in their social context as a whole. I know how vanity – an important aspect of our sexual instinct – weighs on the yearning (common to us all) to stand out from the crowd. Over the last few decades I have observed an increase in exhibitionism – especially among women – and heightened disputes among men, women and everyone in the dash to obtain more and more money, fame and power. I don’t put these things down to coincidence or chance.

I shall try, little by little, to rewrite one of the main subjects of my study and reflection since 1967.

Those who wish to think seriously about sexuality need to, before anything else, free themselves of any preconceived ideas. This is very hard, seeing as how, throughout history, sex has always been one of the most regulated subjects. Certain things (i.e. incest) are forbidden in all societies. Requirements such as the sexual fidelity of women were essential in order to guarantee paternity. In other words, and as Freud thought, some kind of limitation (repression) on the full exploration of sexual urges has been indispensable in establishing social organization.

We live in an era in which the limits imposed on sexuality are minimal compared to six decades ago. The taboo that women couldn’t lose their virginity before they were married evaporated just a few years after the appearance of the contraceptive pill. Women’s economic independence made it possible for them to leave tyrannical or unsuitable husbands. Divorce is now legal in most countries, and discrimination against single people is practically non-existent now – and they have the right to live much freer sex lives. Crimes of passion have become much fewer and farther between, though it doesn’t mean people are having fewer extramarital affairs (on the contrary).

At first sight, it would appear that there are fewer prejudices. It may seem that we are living in an era of sexual freedom. However, if we consider a few more things, we will see that it isn’t necessarily so: how many families manage not to fret about the virility of a more sensitive son who doesn’t like competitive sports such as football? How many parents would let their son study ballet, even if he obviously has the talent for it? How many men feel comfortable if they don’t have an erection when getting physically intimate with a new partner whom they like a lot? And how many women dare tell a new partner that they can’t achieve orgasm during vaginal penetration and prefer to have their clitoris manually or orally stimulated? How many men feel comfortable asking their partners to stimulate their anal region? And how many women wouldn’t interpret it as a sign of homosexual tendencies in their partner?

I could go on, but the list is long enough to illustrate that we still have a long way to go to free ourselves of the prejudices surrounding sex. How many people, men and women, have the courage to “confess” that they prefer masturbation to casual sex – and sometimes even to sex with stable romantic partners? Our society still sees sexual exchanges with others as more pleasurable and relevant than masturbation, but the internet – and erotic material circulating on it – places this point of view in check. New facts should make people revisit their ideas. But how many are willing to do so?

We are conservative creatures with a tendency to hold on to old points of view and reject the new. This is how we act towards new electronic devices. We do the same with our beliefs, with the ideas that we inherit ready-made from our parents (who often inherited them from their own parents). In a subject as regulated as sex, few are those who think freely, who produce their own ideas. Some beliefs come from way back, the fruit of religious traditions and society’s most deep-rooted prejudices. Others are more recent and have come, for example, from psychoanalytical theories established during the 20th century.

Freud and the first psychoanalysts dared much and confronted the Victorian dogmas that generated a lot of suffering for many people. They liberated many of those who felt guilty for the simple fact of having what were considered inappropriate sexual desires. But these psychoanalysts created new dogmas – or consolidated old ones – that have been blindly obeyed by their followers. Sex and love are still understood as part of the same instinctive impulse (after all, what is the definition of instinct?). There is talk of boys’ sexual desire for their mothers, even though children’s only manifestations toward their mothers have to do with tenderness and dependence. There is talk of inherent bisexuality to explain the existence of homosexuality, but if that were the case, in an era as free as ours, shouldn’t practicing bisexual adults be the majority? Why do straight men still have so many prejudices and fear any kind of physical intimacy with members of the same sex? Gay men have the same prejudices and fear being sexually approached by members of the opposite sex. Why?

Although people have never had so much sex, thought so much about it, produced so much and such varied erotic material, it appears we are still far from a consistent understanding of it. We need to free ourselves of the traditional beliefs that limit our thinking in oft-times imperceptible ways. More than anything, we need to free ourselves of the supposedly definitive scientific knowledge collected in the first half of the 20th century. It is imperative that we understand that all knowledge is historically determined and that the time is now ripe for rethinking the subject. The changes that have taken place, so quickly in so many areas (including sexual intimacy), have fostered the development of skills that may allow us to look at many nonessential issues from a new perspective.

An educator once told me that when our minds are not overloaded with knowledge and information, we are in a very creative state. She called it “creative ignorance”. I think I used to be freer in my thinking than I am today, because, in a way, I’m slave to the ideas that I have produced myself thanks to my characteristic ignorance early on in my career as a psychotherapist. I have learned from my patients, from the work that has given me such great pleasure over more than forty years. I will try to free myself as much as possible of the notions that I have already developed on the subject. I ask that you, attentive reader, do the same and try to accompany me on this adventure through the unknown world of sex.

I am more and more convinced that there is an urgent need, both theoretical and practical, to distinguish love from sex. Love is what we feel for someone special whose presence brings us pleasant feelings of peace and cosiness – so welcome because it attenuates the feeling of forsakenness that accompanies us from the first moment of extra-uterine life. The harmony of the womb is broken at birth, giving origin to a feeling of incompleteness that stays with us forever. When a newborn baby is cradled by its mother, it feels something similar to what it felt in the “paradise” from which it was expelled. Thus, its first love object is its mother. Love is, therefore, a negative pleasure – an attenuation of the painful feeling of incompleteness and forsakenness. It is equivalent to a feeling of peace and harmony and depends on the presence of another person. It is an interpersonal phenomenon par excellence. From this perspective, it is impossible to love oneself.

Later in life, mothers tend to be replaced by other figures. The basic characteristics of the phenomenon are all there, however, similar to the ones that manifest in very early life. Loving oneself, self-respect and self-esteem are completely distinct terms. The first doesn’t actually exist; the second has to do with vanity – which we also like to refer to as pride; and the third has to do with the way we see ourselves and is thus a phenomenon intermediated by reason, which depends on a preexisting code of values.

Sex takes a completely different route to the one described above. Its first manifestations appear a little later, around the end of the first year of life. They are concomitant with a child’s realization that its mother is a separate person (“psychological birth”). In this phase, children try to explore everything around them, as well as themselves, as much as possible. They put anything they can in their mouths to see what they taste like and touch objects and themselves. They realize that touching certain parts of the body can spark pleasant sensations and vibrations – and a kind of restlessness, which they experience as pleasurable. This pleasurable restlessness will later be called sexual arousal, and the parts of the body that give rise to it are the erogenous zones.

Children’s discovery of sex is part of the process of getting to know themselves and the world around them. It is a phenomenon related to the first steps in the building of one’s individuality. It takes place without the interference of other beings. Sexual arousal is the product of individual activity and, for this reason, is referred to as autoerotic. Sex is thus arousal, not peace; it is a positive pleasure because it doesn’t depend on the existence of prior discomfort that is attenuated by its manifestation (as is the case when a child is crying and is cheered up when its mother comes over), and it is an essentially personal phenomenon.

Mindful of these three elements (interpersonal or personal; positive or negative pleasure; and the kinds of feelings they cause), it is easy to see that not only are sex and love not the same thing, but they don’t even belong to a single instinctive phenomenon. They are, more than anything, opposing! It is not surprising, therefore, that reconciling these two elements of our subjectivity is, even as adults, quite difficult.

I often wonder why so many extraordinary scholars of human psychology have committed such a terrible mistake. From the little I know, religious thinkers (of all creeds and eras) have always looked at love favourably, though the same cannot be said of sex. The idea of limiting its practice to reproductive needs appears to have been a strong feature of their thinking, which has indirectly implied attempts to keep its influence to a necessary minimum. I imagine that they believed sexual freedom had the power to disrupt family life (seen as essential) and to generate conduct that was inconvenient for the smooth running of life in society. At some stage in the following pages, it will become clear that I suspect they weren’t entirely wrong.

Such great efforts to repress sexual impulses may well be responsible for two simultaneous phenomena: an increase in the relative importance of sex, making it the theme of fantasies and daydreams for the vast majority of people; and the production of psychological disturbances and somatic symptoms in people who are less competent at managing and controlling their fantasies. It was precisely in one such era of sexual repression, most specifically in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, that Freud developed his ideas. They couldn’t fail to be liberating in nature, trying to lighten the repression weighing on the subject of sex.

I understand up to this point. But attributing an erotic nature (related to the presence of an obvious sexual desire) to the strong emotional ties that children, especially boys, have with their mothers strikes me as mistaken; if it exists, it is an exception rather than a rule. Boys feel intense love for their mothers and want to be close to them so they can feel sheltered and cosy. Even when they suck at their mothers’ breasts, they do not have erotic feelings; rather, they are loving in nature. Freud’s oral phase strikes me as essentially emotional, at least during early childhood. This is in keeping with what can be observed.

The marriage between sex and love, transforming the latter into a sublimated (sugary-sweet and more grandiose) version of the former, probably arose out of theoretical musings rather than observable facts. I perfectly understand the tendency to accommodate ideas so that they form a body of coherent concepts. What I can’t accept is that it be done to the detriment of the facts. The facts must speak louder. When a girl feels sexual arousal when she jumps onto her father’s thigh with her legs open, it doesn’t mean she desires him. All it means is that her erogenous zone was stimulated as a result of her action. If she had jumped onto the arm of a sofa, she’d feel exactly the same thing, but it would be unreasonable to think she feels sexual desire for the sofa.

At any rate, the most relevant thing that happened in the early years of psychoanalysis was, in my opinion, Freud’s ability (and that of many of his followers) to assign the correct importance to the phenomenon of sex. It is one of the most intricate aspects of our subjectivity. The changes that have taken place since the 1960s (thanks to, among other things, the appearance of the contraceptive pill) have only reinforced its importance in the personal and social lives of all. We have also learned, in my view, that we know very little about the matter – and still have a long way to go before we can dream of knowing even the basics of how sexuality is processed in our species.

I would now like to discuss another basic concept that I consider fundamental: the difference between arousal and desire. The feeling usually referred to as “desire” is key to contemporary understandings of sexuality – and subjectivity in general. Here, once again, we find ourselves facing a dangerous problem: the imprecise use of generic terms.