Sexual repression?

[pretzelboy]

I'm rather interested to hear what other people around here think of "sexual repression." The idea comes up from time to time in the asexosphere, but I don't think it's ever been discussed much over here, though threads on AVEN pop up from time to time. (searching the site for "sexual repression" and "sexually repressed" via Google confirmed this.)

Anyway...on my blog, I recently posted a thread about the topic, and I figured I'd copy the important parts here to get more discussion. I'm rather interested to see what other people think of the topic.
preg_replace($acronyms_match, $acronyms_repl, 'Am I sexually repressed?

----
Since first finding the asexual community, I have had a growing skepticism toward the concept of sexual repression. I knew that it originated with Freud (or was at least popularized by him) and that scientific psychology tends to hate Freud. A lot. Many of his ideas are untestable, unstudyable, and therefore unscientific--yet people think of them as being facts of science, sound psychological knowledge. I wondered if this might be true for the concept for sexual repression.

Another thing that bothered me is that in popular usage, there are are two rather distinct meanings of "sexual repression" that get merged together, in a fuzzy, muddled confused sort of way, and no one seems to notice. One meaning is simply to say that some people are in denial of their sexuality. They have sexual desires, they have sexual feelings, but they refuse to acknowledge them, pretend they aren't real. When their sexual values and sexual beliefs conflict with their own sexual reality, they try to convince themselves that the do not feel what they indeed do feel.

The second meaning is that everyone--or at least most people--have these powerful, innate sexual desires, and if they repress these, if they do not act on them, it will create neuroses, mental illness, mental problems in their lives. Connected to this is the belief that everyone has these powerful, innate, natural sexual desires, and if someone is not interested, it is because they are repressing them, it is because they are sexually repressed.

As I understand it, Freud meant it in the latter sense. As I have attempted to make sense of this concept, I was quite surprised to find that my thoughts have been informed largely by a sex-therapist with a psychoanalytic approach, a sex-therapist who hardly has kind words to say about the idea of "sexual repression." In [url=http://www.bapfelbaumphd.com/Sexual_Reality.html>Sexual Reality and How We Dismiss It[/url]') Bernard Apfelbaum explains the origins of Freud's idea of sexual repression. (By the way, this article is probably the most interesting piece on sex that I've ever read, and if you've got a bit of time, I would highly recommend it. At 11,000 words, it is a bit long, though.)

To illustrate how our ideas of sexual reality are shaped by our fantasies rather than reality, he quotes John Howard Van Amringe, dean of Columbia College in the 19th Century, who was defending the policy of having an all male school. "If you can teach mathematics to a boy when there's a girl in the room then there is something wrong with the boy." Apfelbaum reflects on this:

Now, as it happened, so many boys have learned mathematics with girls in the room, that we need to ask where Dean Amringe went wrong. The answer is that he confused fantasy with reality. He imagined what it would be like to be a boy in a coed college and this just seemed to him to be a highly erotic prospect. Nowadays, sobered by the reality of coed experience, our imagination is no longer so free to play upon it.

He likens to this Freud's ideas of sexual repression.

Freud is, of course, the modern authority for the image of sex as wild and primitive, at odds with decency, the beast with two backs rattling the bars of its makeshift cage. Perhaps no less than St. Paul he thought of us as daily wrestling with our animal nature. Although Freud's conception is well known, it is not so well known that it was based on an inferential leap.

Now here's a big surprise: the reality that Freud observed was entirely the reverse. Freud's belief in the strength of the sex drive was based on his observations of its weakness. The evidence that Freud adduces for his vision of universal sexual repression is his observation of a widespread lack of libido in both men and women that he called impotence, being careful to say that he was using the term in the broadest possible sense.

After quoting an observation by Freud noting the widespread sexual disinterest, lack of pleasure, and sexual boredom, Apfelbaum makes the following analysis:

This was the sexual reality that Freud observed only to reject it. It is as if he observed that all the boys were learning mathematics with girls in the room and, fully agreeing with Dean Amringe, concluded that there must be something wrong with all the boys. This could not be the natural state of man. Hence Freud's inference that this lack of sexual excitement must be the wound we bear in the service of civilized life.

His point is clear: belief in sexual repression is not based on the reality of sex, not based on the reality of people's sexual desires. It is founded upon a dismissal of reality.

So, if you're wondering if you're repressed, if you're wondering if someone you know is repressed, if you're wondering if asexuality might just be sexual repression after all, the answer is quite simple.

You're not sexually repressed, they're not sexually repressed, no one is sexually repressed because there is no such thing as sexual repression. I previously gave two definitions of sexual repression. One is a denial of one's own sexuality and the other is a denial of the plain reality that a lot of people aren't interested in sex.

Certainly some people are very interested in sex. Certainly some people are in denial of their own sexuality, just as a lot of people are in denial about a lot of things. But I don't think we should call this sexual repression because by using that term, we perpetuate belief in its other meaning, a profoundly anti-asexual meaning. Indeed, an anti-reality meaning. If you or someone you know isn't interested in sex, it's not because deep-down they're secretly really interested in sex and are repressing it. It's much more likely that they're not interested in sex because they're not interested in sex.

[forgetmyself]

pretzelboy, thanks for another enlightening and thought-provoking post. I heartily agree that the concept, and even the term, "sexual repression" are useless. If someone is in denial about their sexuality, we should simply label that denial. I believe there are at least as many people in denial about their asexuality (take it from me). Are we to call them "asexually repressed"? Of course not.

[Dargon]

Well written. In my two psychology courses in college (intro to and abnormal), both mentioned Freud and both said his theories were, to put it bluntly, a load of crap. The sexual repression thing is no different, as you have clearly shown.

[pretzelboy]

Funny you should mention being asexually repressed...

I had been reading a book called "Sexual Desire Disorders" that had a chapter by the same guy quoted in this article. Somehow, his comments on "sexual repression" caused me to think of "asexual repression." I found the idea so amusing that I felt that i had to write about it, but that I couldn't do so with a straight face (or e-equivalent thereof), so I tried to use the most overblown rhetoric I possibly could with a result was a sort of autobiography-satire hybrid thingy that still managed to have semi-coherent arguments, even though those were largely intended to be a literary device to make "asexual repression" sound like a semi-intelligible idea, even though it's kind of a silly idea, with the implied meaning that "sexual repression" is simply stupid. At least, that's what had intended when writing it. Whether anyone actually read it that way, I have no idea.

[forgetmyself]

Thanks! That really was a funny blog post.

[ghosts]

Hm... I guess the term "sexual repression" hasn't really bothered me all that much. I believe that people can be in denial of their own feelings, and that's what I've always thought of as being "sexually repressed." I mean, I think *I* used to be a bit repressed, because I was so uncomfortable with even hearing about sex. It makes sense to me to use the term in that way.

But at the same time, I'm a bit torn, because I can see what you're getting at. I know that some people believe that asexual people are just repressed and that's all there is to it.

Eh, I don't know.

[ily]

I was "asexually repressed" for awhile. But it was hard not to be that way when I'd never heard of asexuality and knew no other mode of being besides (pretended) heterosexuality. Similarly, I used to be in denial about having a learning disability, but once I got more information on it and found out that other people had it too, I accepted it. It's really easy to deny something to yourself when you think you're the only one, and it's something out of mainstream society. Which is why the idea of sexual repression is odd to me, from my personal experience. When it comes to repressing sexual feelings, I would have no motive. I'm very motivated by belonging, so now that I know there are other asexual people, I don't deny it.

[pretzelboy]

For a while, I had been going back and forth on the matter. On the one hand, there were the totally bogus (and strongly anti-asexual) meanings. But then I saw one author that I really liked who used the term in a completely sensible context. (I think it had to do with operationally defining homosexuality, and he imagined a guy who was "sexually repressed" who was trying really hard to convince himself that the erections he got and the warm and fuzzy feelings he felt in response to other guys were just friendly sorts of feelings. That kind of being "sexually repressed" seemed real enough.

But now my position is that a lot of people who use the term are much less clear about what they mean by it, giving the very real possibility of misinterpretation, and the possibility of reinforcing the negative meanings. But more than that, I don't think we need the term "sexually repressed" at all to describe the legitimate meanings of the terms. I made a thread [url=http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=41606] on AVEN about this same topic (partly, I wanted a wider readership, and, partly, I was curious about the range of opinions there.)

The term sexual repression can mean a number of different things. It can mean that 1) someone is unwilling to acknowledge their sexual feelings 2) that not acting on sexual desires will somehow lead to neuroses 3) that all people are naturally interested in sex and that if someone isn't interested, it must be because they are "repressing" their sexuality, 4) that a society's rules about sexuality are oppressive and prevent people from enjoying sexuality 5) that a person is unable to have the kinds of sexual encounters they want because their society won't allow it or 6) that a person has sexual problems because messages their society taught them about sexuality prevent them from being able to do so.

Hallu made a very sensible comment.

See, in my experience, all of those are real, except for the obnoxious 2 and 3 (and maybe 5, since lots of people with socially unacceptable sexual desires find ways to work around the societal constraints in question - but people often go through a lot of confusion and angst and pain because they're not sure whether they actually want to do that or not.)

It's conceivable that we could find other things to call those things except for "repression", if the term "repression" is too problematic, but in that case what would we call them?

And my response to her

I definitely think that for the real ones we should find alternate terms for them besides sexual repression. I think it would add clarity, decrease confusion, and not reinforce the stupid meanings.

I think that for a lot of them, alternate terms are pretty easy.

For number one: Not acknowledging one's sexuality/sexual feelings, being in denial about one's sexuality, being uncomfortable with one's sexuality, not being comfortable talking about sexuality etc.

For number four, we could just replace "repress" with "oppress" and the situation is fixed.

For number five, I don't really see a need for a single term for this and when needing to describe it, generally a whole sentence would work. (i.e. Because of the taboo against X sexual act in society Y, many people are forced to go underground with their sexuality/have difficulty finding sexual partners/can only find sexual partners in unsafe ways, etc.)

For number six, the term "internalized homophobia" already describes one type of this. Other terms like "internalizing negative societal messages about sexuality" should work.

I think that for most of these, there already are terms (in English, at least) to describe them. It doesn't seem like there is even a need to use work-arounds or PC sounding language to accomplish the task of not talking about "sexual repression." More than that, I think people would be more intelligible if they used these rather than the vague "sexual repression" that no one seems to know what it means. At least, that's my totally biased opinion.

To a large extent, I think that asexuals should actively challenge the idea of sexual repression. Partly, this is because I think that one of the big ways asexuality can make a positive societal contribution is to normalize not being interested in sex. Actively challenging the idea of "sexual repression" can be a big part of how we do that. In the wider culture, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who think "sexual repression" is nonsense, but they keep that opinion to themselves.

Of course, those who are convinced asexuals are just repressed are likely to continue in that. Largely, I think this is because a lot of reasoning people do is ad hoc. They don't believe in asexuality, so they need to find something that they can use to justify that belief with. Whether that's a sexually-repressed response, not-met-right-person response, not-had-sex-with-right-person/not-had-sex-with-me response, just-late-bloomer response, gay-and-denying-it response, or whatever is, to a large extent, irrelevant.

Still, there are those who are uncertain (and thus more likely to be persuadable) who may have their doubts because of some nonsensical belief about sexual repression. I've had people find my blog by asking whether they're asexual or repressed. I've seen people on AVEN asking how we know if asexuality isn't just repression. Given these positions, I think there is ample reason to fight the idea.

[Olivier]

OK, I'll put on my contrary hat

Firstly, I think sexual repression exists. Not perhaps in a purely Freudian sense, but along the lines of 1, 6, and somewhat 4 above.

Secondly, I think "sexual repression" is a fine and dandy word for that.

Thirdly, as long as society collectively is not good at talking candidly about sex and sexuality, some people will use terms concerning sexuality wrongly or weirdly, no matter what term you choose.

Fourthly, some people who identify as asexual are actually repressed sexuals. Damn it would be weird if this wasn't true - a whole subsection of society with a mature and insightful handle on their sexuality! Go to AVEN and see it ain't so. If I were less tactful I could name a dozen names, but there are AVENites who to me sound very sexual, and very sexually repressed. They're often young, and wrong or confused (or unnaturally certain) about a whole lot of other stuff, too.

Fifthly, discussing whether asexuality is sexual repression is a useful thing to do. Mostly to reinforce the point that while some people may identify as asexual due to sexual repression, most don't. And also to reinforce that while a small number may, that's not an invalidator of an orientation.

Yes, there are other ways of describing it. Framing things in terms of denial works for me in the cases where that's the dynamic. And making a clean break from Freud is a plus. But I'm happy enough with the term "sexual repression". It's meaning is usually perfectly clear from context, and if it's used in a way that's weird or wrong, I think that reflects more on the author than the term itself (as with most terms).

[pretzelboy]

Olivier, I think my main disagreement with you is on point two, having to do with a qualification on point three. That some of the things "sexual repression" can be used to mean exist is, I think, clear enough.

Thirdly, as long as society collectively is not good at talking candidly about sex and sexuality, some people will use terms concerning sexuality wrongly or weirdly, no matter what term you choose.

While it's true that some people use words "wrong or weirdly," I don't think we can say that in this context.

(Tangent: What it means to use a word wrong is kind of a difficult issue as there is no absolute standard for what is right or not in language. If everyone except a very small number of isolated people used a word to mean one thing, the large majority's understanding is "right" and those differing are "wrong" because they're violating the shared/standard/common/accepted understanding/meaning. But if a lot of people start using a word "wrong", then some language purists will condemn it as wrong, but it will continue to be used intelligibly in the "wrong" sense where both speaker and hearer have a common understanding with the "wrong meaning." Then if ever more people are using it in the "wrong" sense, you have a change in meaning over time. At what point does the "wrong" meaning become the "right" one?)

In this case, the "wrong and weird" meanings (i.e. the Freudian sorts of 2 and 3) are actually closer to the original meaning. (The OED's first usage of "sexual repression" is dated to 1885:

E. B. FOOTE Replies Alphites xvi. 88 These diseases are induced by *sexual repression and secret indulgences as well as by intemperance in the exercise of the natural function

. They also have a quote from a translation of Freud dated to 1910. As I understand it, Freud did a lot of popularize the notion. One of my main objection to using "sexual repression" for the sensible meanings is that the stupid meanings (which tend to be a generally dumbed down version of Freud) are a) more original and b) not even close to being entirely lost. If those original meanings were dead and gone, mere remnants of history, I might not object to the term sexual repression. If the stupid meanings were misunderstandings of the primary meanings and were just used by ill-informed people who don't understand what "sexual repression" is supposed to mean, I might not object to the term "sexual repression." But neither is the case.

In fact, in the OED's 4 examples, the only one that diverges from 2 and 3 may be any of the six.

It may seem strange that Queen Victoria and her reign are associated with sexual repression. After all, she did have nine children.

Another point is the (quasi-lost) derivation of the term: "sexual repression." Obviously "repression" is a nominal version of the verb "repress." The idea is people repressing their sexual desires. Yet, except for people who have absolutely no sexual desires of any kind and people who have no self-controll of any kind, everyone represses sexual desires. Just like we have to repress lots of our desires as a simply consequence of having to live in society with other people. (Freud's idea of repression seems to have been based on something like this, except, as I understand it, he seemed to think this had to do with the effects of civilization. But the need to repress desires to get along with others is just as necessary in hunter-gatherer societies as it is in modern urban life.

I may really want to tell something that I think they're a total dumbass, but, generally, I repress this desire because giving in to it might not be such a good idea. Someone may want to have sex with a certain person, but if that person doesn't want to have sex with them, they damn well better repress that desire. If someone is in a public place and is feeling sexual desires, they better repress that one as well, at least until they're in a not-so-public place. I think the idea of sexual repression somehow stems from the idea that repressing sexual desires too much will lead to bad effects.

It is worth noting that for (sexual repression = denial), the idea of repression sexual desires is, to a large extent, obscured. I think this has to do with the change in meaning that has occured over time. I'm not entirely sure why, but my gut tells me that this concept, originating in academia, was simply too stupid for many ordinary people to grasp, so they had to redefine it in terms that actually made sense. (This seems similar to what has happened to the term "socially constructed", which many people now take to mean "not genetically based", sometimes to the great frustration of social constructionists, but that's a whole nother can of worms.)

Like I said, I basically agree with your other points, except that I would qualify them by saying that I would use language other than "sexual repression/sexually repressed."

Also, from what I've seen on AVEN, a number of the rather obviously sexual people thinking they're asexual might not be so-much in denial of their sexuality but identifying as asexual based on a totally unrealistic idea of sexuality. The fact that I'm pretty sure these people aren't asexual stems from what I know about their experiences based on their self-report. If they've reported it, I'm pretty sure they're aware of it. Rather, they seem to have gotten these weird notions of what sexual people are like from pop-culture, from TV movies and magazinzes, and from peer interaction, and the result is, "Like, OMG. I don't want to have sex with 50 totally random people a day! Ewww! Could this possibly mean I'm asexual? I think it does!"