This is a guest post by Dr Rupert Read, School of Philosophy, UEA.
In the wake of the affair that made world-wide news recently involving the exposure of a rather sad, vain and irresponsible Englishman who posed in a blog as a gay (Syrian) woman, the controversial feminist writer Julie Bindel wrote illuminatingly in the GUARDIAN about “What straight men don’t understand about lesbians“. Her amusing article, deservedly, attracted about eight hundred published comments. The only point, I think, at which she went wrong, was in her opening speculations about why so many straight men are fascinated by (their fantasy of) lesbians (She thinks it has to do with male indignation that lesbians “do not desire the male form”. But this explains none of the delirious quality of male-fascination with all thingsSapphic.).
Perhaps this failing on Bindel’s part is not surprising: for she is not a straight man…
The real reason why the idea of lesbianism so fascinates many straight men is one that is easier to understand if one is. Having some philosophical awareness also helps. For the real reason is closely connected with the phenomenology of sexual fantasy, which works via virtual identification. In other words: it is about imagining yourself into the position of one of the sexual partners. In the case of lesbianism, a straight man seeks to imagine himself into the position of one of the partners, desiring the other woman of the pair – and then can immediately switch into the second woman’s subject position, desiring the first. (This back and forth virtual-switching of identification is especially delicious because of course it tacitly involves the illicit thrill of being a woman, at the level of imagination, as well as desiring one.) It works especially for the male fantasist when both the women in question are ‘desirable’ (e.g. porn models, or ‘lipstick lesbians’) and/or when the limbs etc. of the participants are so entwined that it is slightly hard to tell who is who. A man may get very over-excited by rapidly – ‘deliriously’ – switching subject-positions in his imagination, and work himself up in a way that doesn’t have a direct parallel in situations of heterosexual desire.
Furthermore, this also explains male hetero disgust for male homosexuality. For, in this case, a male contemplating it cannot succeed overtly in imagining himself into the position of either male partner: for doing so would commit him to having to imagine himself desiring a man: which, for a hetero male, is unacceptable.
So that’s what lesbians don’t understand about straight men: that their fantasy of lesbians essentially involves imagining themselves into the position of the lesbians in question. Sort-of the opposite of the explanation given by Bindel. And, moreover, a kind of hidden massive compliment to (and envy of) lesbians, rather than an expression of outrage at them…
Not that it really matters in the context of what’s written here, I thought I would point out that the chap exposed as a hoaxer was an American living in Scotland, not an Englishman.
The second one ‘outed’ was apparently also an American.
#justsaying
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10732154
How challenging is this to imagine?
Straight men, now that would be the classical subject, which of course imagines itself into either side of anything (in fact straight men have no trouble imagining that straight women desire what they desire).
And how is it a ‘compliment to (or an envy of) lesbians’, oh yes: this is R. Read speaking…
Dr Rupert Read may well enjoy ‘the illicit thrill of being a woman’ and get ‘very over-excited by rapidly – ‘deliriously’ – switching subject-position’ in ‘lesbian’ fantasies. That he personally jumps into the body of a ‘lesbian’ woman in his fantasy life is fine and dandy. That he jumps from ‘Rupert likes’ to ‘straight men like’ isn’t and, to be frank, I’d have thought some training in philosophy might have taught him that. Sadly being a man with training in philosophy, as opposed to a subject that seems in some way pertinent (the passing reference to the ‘phenomenology of sexual fantasy’ does nothing to suggest philosophers have any privileged insight on such matters) does not put Dr Read in any position to determine what ‘the’ explanation for the common male fascination with all things Sapphic is. His possession of a penis and a philosophy doctorate does not qualify him to speak for all men. And extrapolating from one’s own fantasy life to assumptions about how the (straight) members of a whole sex ‘work’ sexually-speaking seems to be exactly the kind of mistake that wiser thinkers have been counseling against for a very long time.
Thanks Matt.
Babette: Let’s let your ad hominem swipe pass, and focus on your claim: ‘Straight men have no trouble imagining that straight women desire what they desire.’ This is simply mistaken. What I think you are referring to is when straight men have no trouble imagining that straight women desire FOR THEM what they desire for themselves. E.g. That women want to be debased, dominated, or whatever. But that is not the same thing at all. In that scenario, a straight man simply does not try to really imagine what the woman wants. When a straight man sees heterosexual sex, he typically does not identify with the woman. He identifies with the man. And when he imagine that the woman wants the man to get what the man wants, that is nothing to do with the phenomenon I am referring to.
So you have failed to capture the phenomenon that you meant to capture, let alone the phenomenon that I was capturing in my post. You have no explanation of what I called the delirious quality of the hetero desire ‘for’ lesbians.
Curious: your point seems to me that I am allegedly merely generalising from my own case. That is a very rash generalisation from what I actually wrote. I was talking about what often happens WHEN men watch images of / fantasise about lesbians. As a matter of fact, this isn’t something I do very much at all – Not that it is really any of your business.
My claim is one about the structure of male desire for lesbians – IN cases where that desire occurs. I would have hoped it was obvious that my claim is not about all straight men under every such conceivable circumstance: If you read what I wrote carefully, you will note for instance that I spoke about “many straight men”, not about “all”. So your (rather unpleasant) criticisms miss their target.
The important thing to understand about what I am suggesting in this piece is that it is a self-admitted claim/speculation/suggestion. What I really want – what would be nice, if there are men out there who ARE brave enough to reflect on their desire for or for seeing or fantasising about lesbian sex and brave enough to write about it – would be to get some feedback. If lots of men acknowledge what I am saying as on reflection reflecting their experience, then it will start to look like I am right. If lots of men don’t so acknowledge this and come up with some alternative account of what is going on, of what they find exciting, instead, then it will start to look like I am wrong. My claim in the piece is in that sense a ‘therapeutic’ claim, following the later Gordon Baker’s reading of Wittgenstein, following an idealised version of what Freud did at his best. I am offering something the criterion of whose truth depends ultimately on its acknowledgement or otherwise by my interlocutors: in this case, by straight white men who find lesbianism or their fantasy of it exciting. I would hope it might be clear to readers of this blog why this is (1) rather more likely to be successful as an approach than Bindel’s pure negative fantasy explanation, and (2) of potential philospohical interest.
Dr Read,
I am sorry you found my criticism unpleasant. I make no presumption about your private life and I absolutely agree – that is none of my business.
Still, if you are not generalising from your own case what exactly are you generalising from, and why do think generalising is a good thing? Especially when what you are responding to are sweeping generalisations by newspaper columnist.
Obviously you were only talking about those men (‘most men’) who do fantasise about ‘lesbians’ – that was indeed quite clear. You did not suggest that all men fantasise about ‘lesbian’ activities no (obviously). But what you did do was make unqualified and unwarranted generalisations about “why the idea of lesbianism so fascinates many straight men.” You simply asserted – with no reference to anything in the way of scientific findings or argument, and with no qualifications about ‘many’ or ‘some’ – that those straight men who do so fantasise about lesbians imagine themselves as a if a woman ‘deliriously’ – switching subject-positions in such a scenario. The fact – as you are keen to announce – that you are a heterosexual man with a philosophy doctorate gives me no reason for anybody to think this is so. You are of course free to make an actual argument for it if you so desire, cite studies, etc.
Dr Read
“The important thing to understand about what I am suggesting in this piece is that it is a self-admitted claim/speculation/suggestion.”
Sorry that message had not been visible to me when I replied. I didn’t pick up on the fact that was your intent from anything in your blog posting. It simply seemed that one sweeping generalisation was being countered by another sweeping generalisation. In any case I could, and should, have couched my objections rather better.
As a hypothesis about how some (perhaps many) men may interact with, say, ‘lesbian’ erotica it does not sound implausible. I rather think many will instead be indulging in the fantasy that they are present at ‘threesome’ (that being the fantasy commonly attributed to most men) or simply that they find the presence of a naked bloke off-putting and somewhat counter-productive to achieving the end intended. In any case I wish you luck in your attempt to solicit honest responses on these matters of psychological interest. And I apologise for the manner of my prior responses.
(And quite so Chris, I should indeed be amongst those taking a chill-pill)
Rupert
What your contribution seems to overlook is that there is something problematic about the whole category of ‘heterosexual mens’ fantasies’ as if this was somehow homogeneous. One of Freud’s better points and something taken up by post-modernists in their saner moments is the polymorphous perverse. Human beings- straight, gay, male, female, get turned on by all manner of things. It seems to me that one of the many deleterious effects of porn is the ways in which male (and to some extent female and same-sex) fantasies are standardised and turned into a product. I think one factor driving porn into more and more violent and extreme imagery is that fact that porn is actually a pretty boring medium.
Actually, uh, Rupert, since you seem to have no trouble using my first name (although we have never met), your reply seems to embody the very phenomenon invoked in my comment (which, just to be clear here, was only a comment, i.e., a passing remark).
Beyond that the manifest limitations in your parsing of what I wrote would also seem to embody the same phenomenon.
To claim that I have “failed to capture the phenomenon that [I] meant to capture, let alone the phenomenon that [you] w[ere] capturing in [your] post” simply simply because you fail to grasp its meaning (and I assure you that you failed to grasp the meaning of the first) is typical of a certain scholarly formation but it does not make of it an accurate claim.
Indeed, you seem not to understand that we agree.
I concur that the straight man places himself into the man’s position (or better said, more accurately said, he overlooks that identification as a mediated relation with the woman, on whom he is focused as subject: to quote your reply here, “straight man simply does not try to really imagine what the woman wants” … indeed he does not. But he assumes that she likes (as object) what he likes does (as subject). What he does not do is suppose that she is a subject.
Good answer but it does not taken the amphora. The winner is…
TIRESIAS, a son of Everes (or Phorbas, Ptolem. Hephaest. 1) and Chariclo, whence he is sometimes called Εὐηρείδης. (Callim. Lav. Pall. 81 ; Theocrit. Id. 24.70.) He belonged to the ancient family of Udaeus at Thebes, and was one of the most renowned soothsayers in all antiquity. He was blind from his seventh year, but lived to a very old age… Another tradition accounts for his blindness in the following manner. Once, when on Mount Cythaeron (others say Cyllene), he saw a male and a female serpent together; he struck at them with his staff, and as he happened to kill the female, he himself was metamorphosed into a woman. Seven years later he again saw two serpents. and now killing the male, he again became a man. It was for this reason that Zeus and Hera. when they were disputing as to whether a man or a woman had more enjoyments, referred the matter to Teiresias, who could judge of both, and declared in favour of the assertion of Zeus that women had more enjoyments. Hera, indignant at the answer, blinded him, but Zeus gave him the power of prophecy, and granted him a life which was to last for seven or nine generations. (Apollod. l.c. ; Hygin. Fab. 75 ; Ov. Met. 3.320, &c.; Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 682 ; Pind. N. 1.91.)
Smith, A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology.
The criticisms presented above were close enough to the mark to devastate Dr. Read’s speculation. By all appearances, Dr. Read is in no position to speak on behalf of even that subset of heterosexual men who are titillated by lesbian media. Yet his original post proposes to do just that. Hence he asserts, “For the real reason [why the idea of lesbianism so fascinates many straight men] is closely connected with the phenomenology of sexual fantasy, which works via virtual identification.” The accent, here, is on the phrase: “the real reason”. The claim is so bold, and so unmotivated by considered argument, that it is impossible to endure without complaint.
In fairness to Dr. Read, he is not alone in adopting that pretence of authority over interpreting the quality of sexual experience. That pretence is claimed by many cultural theorists, including the author of the Comment is Free article, and Freud, and numerous others. It is a popular fallacy, usually suited for aggressive rhetorical purposes, and very rarely used in a responsible fashion. But that is not enough to recommend it in philosophical company, or so at least one hopes.
I have read Dr Read’s CV on the appropriate web site; what a clever man, most impressive. Maybe I have missed, it but I can find nothing about his marital status, which must have some relevance. None of our business I guess, but as Curious has stated Dr Read’s assertions concerning the desires of heterosexual men to indulge themselves with Homosexual women is devoid of any references or sources and appears to be a product of his own imagination. I do not consider myself a Prude or narrow minded, possibly the opposite, according to some of my acquaintances, but I must confess to finding Dr Read’s vivid description of Hetero-Lesbo activity somewhat distasteful.
Certainly, or more accurately for my own part, I have found some Lesbians attractive mentally and/or physically and realise that I could be no more than a friend, may be a close one. However I would have no desire whatsoever to be a party in their sexual activity. I might privately look at a lady and think “What a waste” but we are born as we are, and nothing can be done about that. When someone states they are “Being an out and proud lesbian” I tend to think, so what, be quiet and get on with life. If I find you attractive but you prefer your own sex, that’s my hard luck.
I am not so naïve as to think that my feelings in this matter are held by all men and accordingly would not attribute them thus. As for Wittgenstein, thereof I must remain silent, on all counts.
Don: I think your finding what I wrote ‘distasteful’ reflects more on you than on me. Forgive me, but you sound rather like: a prude.
‘A product of one’s imagination’: yes: sounds like a good definition of philosophy. Sounds like a good thing.
In response to Richard: Do read my 3rd comment above. I am not the ‘imperialistic’ thinker you take me for. I certainly don’t mean to deny that there is such a thing of polymorphous perversity. I think that there’s quite a lot of it about… But what I also think is that there is a dominant ‘legitimate’ sexual imaginary in most ‘straight’ men (and women), that suppresses this polymorphousness. Indeed, this is quite consistent with Freud’s thoughts on this point.
Curious: Thanks for your recent comments. Helpful.
You suggest that the popularity of images / fantasies /scenes of lesbians among many straight men can be explained by these men imagining themselves into the couple and turning it into a trio. But surely this only explains the popularity of scenes of two women and a man (The famous and indeed popular classic ‘threesome’). (If you are concerned that having the man in there spoils the illusion, in the case of erotica/pornography, that the man in question could be the fantasiser of viewer himself, that is fairly easily dealt with: for instance, by having his face invisible.)
The difficult-to-explain datum, which my original piece sought to explain, and which no commenter has addressed, is how many men are fascinated by images of women caressing women, touching women, etc. . This is the datum I have offered a conjecture about. I think that the conjecture is very suggestive in relation to the ‘data’. That’s why I think that this is the real reason why many men love ‘lesbian’ erotica. That’s what I claimed.
When a straight man sees images of a man and a woman together, he standardly identifies with the man. If he ever finds himself starting to identify with the woman, the unacceptability of his doing so is easily corrected: he can return swiftly to desiring the woman again, and ‘being’ the man again. In the case of ‘lesbian’ erotica etc, instead what must occur is a rapid switching back and forth: the hand caressing the woman he desires becomes recognised as a woman’s hand; quick switch to identifying instead with the other who is not that woman; but that too is a woman, and so back to first base again. And on and on. A spiral of pleasure and desire multiplying just as fast as it gets negated in its unacceptability to the straight man’s self-image (as straight).
Because of the illicit and semi-unconscious aspects of such desire, there can be no expectation that, if I am right, my rightness will show up in conventional surveys about human sexual response. That is why, Curious, I do not take the banal ‘scientific’ route that you propose. Instead, I offer a philosopher’s suggestion, akin to a psychoanalyst’s conjecture. Its acknowledgement or otherwise by plenty of straight men willing to honestly and deeply reflect is the only thing that can settle the matter.
Thanks for your clarification Babette. I don’t disagree with your final paragraph – if it is taken as a claim about the way that some straight men, especially historically, have treated women, perhaps especially some of those men who have fantasised ‘lesbians’ as objects for their titillation. (Though I think of course that one of the things that is quite interesting and intriguing about my claim is what I ended my original post with: the thought – and this would be shocking to such men – that their titillation is purchased ultimately at the cost of their owning up to tacitly fantasising about BEING women.) HOWEVER, I think one needs to be clear that your final paragraph risks being calumniously unfair to many other straight men. Many feminist-identified straight men, such as myself, have worked hard to ensure that we DO treat women, especially perhaps those we are closest to, as subjects.
What is better than a beautiful, sexy, naked girl? Two beautiful, sexy, naked girls. I am simplifying, but you get the point.
Rupert:
You claim that a straight man will identify with the man if he sees a man and woman in a sexual position and that he cannot imagine himself as participating in a homosexual act.
We’re in 2011.
I’m fairly straight, although I do recall a university gay friend (about 45 years ago) remarking.
“everyone is gay until proved otherwise and there is no proof”.
However, maybe I suffer from an excess of imagination or a deficiency of straightness, but I have absolutely no difficulty imagining myself in a female position or in a homosexual act.
Flaubert and Tolstoy, both “straight” males, were capable of writing excellent novels, Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina, from the point of view of female sexuality, so I don’t feel that I’m in bad company here.
By the way, for a “straight” male to effectively be good lover (which I do not claim to be), he would have to understand female sexuality from a female point of view or so it seems to me.
Blake: I take the point, but indeed: you are over-simplifying to problematic effect. Your observation explains why straight men might like to see (e.g.) images of two women in one frame. What it does not explain is why those women should be ‘getting it on’. That is the explanandum which I am endeavouring to explain. It is a mystery – which I think my idea can solve.
S.W.: Good for you, and I don’t necessarily disagree. But my point in the piece and in these comments has in part been that such polymorphous perversity / natural bisexuality or whatever you want to call it runs into massive ‘prohibitions’. Or do you really believe that most straight men would, like you, “have absolutely no difficulty imagining [themselves] in a female position or in a homosexual act?” To ask the question is to answer it: We all know full well that to many straight men this would be utterly unacceptable. I.e. They could not accept that they do this / could do this.
Given that, the question remains as to why they are often attracted to something which seems to involve some version at least of them imagining themselves in a female position. I have offered a claim as to how and why this is so. I am waiting to hear a plausible alternative claim.
“I am waiting to hear a plausible alternative claim.”
How about this? The fact that two pulchritudinous women are not just in one frame, but are “getting it on” (as you put it) signals to the viewer that they are so, so, so pulchritudinous that they feel compelled to violate heterosexual taboos and touch each other. So it’s an intensifier of the perception of erotic beauty. Nothing to do with the viewer adopting the perspective of each woman.
I have no support whatever for this, but it seems like a worthy rival to your hypothesis.
Rupert:
I have no hard evidence on what most straight males imagine, especially since male conversations about sex are not particularly trustworthy in my experience.
However, we all dream during our sleep, and dreams have an annoying tendency to remind us of aspects of our personality which we otherwise would not wish to be reminded of, such as, homosexual fears or fantasies.
I assume that most straight males have such dreams from time to time.
A psychotherapist once told me that in her experience during therapy all straight males express fears of homosexual impulses. No, not a psychoanalyst.
Dr Read
I am glad you found my most recent comments helpful. To clarify, I did not mean to suggest that the popularity of ‘lesbian’ (bi-sexual?) women ‘getting it on’ in erotica and pornography can be explained by those ‘men imagining themselves into the couple and turning it into a trio’. I don’t know that there is one simple explanation of how those men and boys who enjoy watching that kind of thing ‘work’, and I’m not inclined to think it is useful to presume that there is a ‘one size fits all’ answer at the outset. As I said earlier your own hypothesis about does not sound implausible as an explanation of how some (perhaps many) men may interact with ‘lesbian’ erotica. I am quite open to the possibility that this is how some/many men ‘tick’ and, unlike yourself, I think the field of Sexology – which does have experience dealing with “the illicit and semi-unconscious aspects of … desire” – might well be able to confirm your hypothesis for you. I did offer two other suggestions – which are quite consistent with the idea that some/many men interact with said erotica in the way you suggest. One of these was that some men enjoy ‘lesbian’ scenes because “in the fantasy … they are present at [a] ‘threesome.’” The other – not necessarily unrelated – explanation was that some men “find the presence of a naked bloke off-putting”.
The second factor is not something that can be dealt with by making a naked bloke’s face invisible (in either male-female or ‘threesome scenes). At least some heterosexual men, presumably, don’t want to see other men’s buttocks and penises and can’t fantasise themselves into thinking that any penis on show is their own. I suggest some of those who don’t like seeing male bits, may prefer ‘lone female masturbating’ scenes to male-females sex scenes for that reason. I would suggest that some men who don’t like watching another men bobbing around may simply find ‘lesbian’ scenes to be simply ‘more’ of what they like. But I have also suggested that ‘lesbian’ scenes may be popular with some men because of the threesome fantasy so frequently ascribed to all of heterosexual malekind. You have countered that the threesome fantasy “only explains the popularity of scenes of two women and a man”. (Actually I believe there is no such popularity of scenes depicting two women and a man to explain – despite the apparent popularity of the fantasy – rather there is a relative unpopularity to explain.) But I suggest some men might prefer to imagine themselves waiting in the wings to join in rather than watching some naked bloke bobbing about doing what they’d like to.
Of course some men may well ‘get off ‘ on the fantasy that they are the lone woman who is depicted as pleasuring herself. But, for what very little it is worth, I think some, perhaps many or most, will simply be adopting the position of the voyeur. I would speculate that some men do the same when it comes to ‘lesbian’ scenes – that there is no rapid delirious switching of positions – there is only a voyeur getting off on an erotic scene. Even *if* it is the case that “When a straight man sees images of a man and a woman together, he standardly identifies with the man” this does not mean that “In the case of ‘lesbian’ erotica etc, instead what MUST occur is a rapid switching back and forth” (my emphasis). I suggest you are not at all entitled to that ‘must’ – you are only entitled to speculate on the basis of personal experience or anecdotal evidence that some men are switching about deliriously in the way you describe.
Now obviously some men can be aroused by scenes that do show naked men bobbing about. And in fact there is ‘shortage’ of FFM threesomes in heterosexual male pornography relative to the apparent popularity of the FFM threesome fantasy. My limited understanding is that despite the fact that (apparently) heterosexual men fantasise rather less about joining in those forms of group sex themselves, in heterosexual male pornography MMF or indeed MMMF group sex scenes are really quite common. Again, I do not presume that in MMF scenes all male viewers are “rapidly – ‘deliriously’ – switching positions” between the men they identify with (of course some may). That is to say, whilst I suspect few identify themselves with the woman at the centre of attention (of course some may well do so) I don’t know that commonly they somehow ‘identify’ themselves with all of the men or that there is any ‘switching’ between male identifications. Rather, like ‘one male – one female’ scenes in heterosexual male pornography. I imagine the viewer is simply ‘getting off’ as a voyeur on a scene of objectification, degradation and violation of woman.
So what I am suggesting is that when it comes to porn and erotica, the ‘identification’ thesis that seems to ground your explanation of why boys ‘get off’ on girls ‘getting it on’ with each other is not necessarily true for all men at all times.
Thanks Curious. Interesting.
The key problem it seems to me that remains with your account is that it still doesn’t explain why two women who are pictured for straight male delectation are ‘getting it on’ as opposed to simply offering themselves up to the male viewer. That is what I am seeking to understand, as I said in my comment to Blake, above: why there is such an attraction to two women making love / whatever, rather than just posing provocatively, etc.
Jean’s hypothesis [for which, many thanks] is it seems to me the first real potentially-viable one I’ve heard, beside my own. It may well have something to it. I am sceptical as to how complete it is likely to be though: because it necessarily involves a level of _reflection_ on the part of the viewer / fantasist which, while it may well sometimes occur, seems to me unlikely to be present with the kind of ubiquity which would be needed to explain the ubiquity of the apparent attraction of these images / fantasies, etc. .
Jean’s idea also wouldn’t explain why straight men often find ‘lesbian’ erotica etc. hugely attractive even when they _know_ it is a set-up (e.g. if they have themselves set it up artificially). My conjecture is that what is really going on is the back-and-forth dangerous delicious identification and disidentification that I have proposed. For such a process does not depend on whether the scene is a set-up or not; it simply inhabits the scene / the images / the fantasy.
I don’t think it’s necessarily “reflective”, as in something the viewer runs through consciously. Re: your other point. When two women together are a set up, the guy just has to let himself forget it’s a set up. But that kind of thing is standard in pornography–people are portrayed as very into the whole business, which is part of the thrill for the viewer, though everyone knows they’re being paid and probably bored.
I’m not rejecting your view, just saying there are other possibilities.
Rupert,
“the key problem … that remains with your account is that it still doesn’t explain why two women who are pictured for straight male delectation are ‘getting it on’ as opposed to simply offering themselves up to the male viewer.”
I think you make a valid point. If you were to contrast the porn scenario of two women pretending to pleasure each other with a scene involving two women separately simulating masturbation, I suspect you would be right in thinking that there is an interest in the former that is not satisfied for some men by the latter. What has to be said is there a strong interest on the part of some males to see things being done to women (and I phrase it that way deliberately). Pornographic scenes of women doing things to other women may simply be a way of showing women having things done to them without having to distract men with the off-putting sight of a naked man bobbing about. Thus some men may prefer seeing a woman being submissively penetrated by another female to watching her being penetrated by another man. Now, I don’t suggest this is universally – or even commonly – the case. I merely wish to suggest that some men may have a fascination for watching that kind of stuff, not because they are fascinated by lesbianism as such, but simply because they like watching women submitting to having various things done to them but don’t like seeing naked men. And I suggest there is absolutely no reason to suppose there is any ‘delirious’ switching between subjects in such cases. To reiterate a prior point; you assert that because straight men usually identify with the male in a sex scene “In the case of ‘lesbian’ erotica … what MUST occur is a rapid switching back and forth” but you are NOT entitled to that ‘MUST’ – you have no argument to take you from one generalization to the other.
Now, I would stress again that I’m not trying to offer an account of why all or most of those men who like watching girls ‘getting it on’ with other girls do like watching it. As stated, I think it rather unlikely that there is ‘one’ explanation for why men who like watching ‘lesbian’ sex scenes (and I think it naïve to assume there is). The reasons for the male interest in ‘girl on girl’ scenarios have been debated ad nauseum and no consensus has been reached on the subject. I have to say I think it rather unlikely that there is one simple answer that all others have failed to find in their own heads and one philosopher has just happened to stumble across this universal truth. The fact that the male interest in ‘lesbian’ sex IS a long-standing mystery, does rather suggest that there is NOT one simple answer. You may have explained how some men ‘tick’, as may Jean, and even Julie Bindel may at least be right in thinking that male fascination with things Sapphic is *sometimes* “born out of total indignation that we [lesbians] do not desire the male form.”. And I think further explanations for why some of that subset of men who like watching girls ‘getting it on’ with other girls can be added to the list of possibly-true-of some-men stories. But I see absolutely no reason to suppose there is ‘one’ general answer, and good reason to assume there isn’t.
Given that with regard to your ‘switching’ conjecture “its acknowledgement or otherwise by plenty of straight men willing to honestly and deeply reflect is the only thing that can settle the matter” you have, in effect, offered up a thesis that can neither be proven or refuted by science or argument. There will, as you know, be no mass submission of personal stories to TPM from men that will confirm your thesis or prove another simple explanation is true. And the invalidity of your argument (such as it is) does not prove your conclusion is wrong. Thus I rather think your ‘suggestion’, is indeed, as you say, very much ‘akin to a psychoanalyst’s conjecture’. What psychoanalysts do not do is offer truth-apt explanations of, say, the meanings of dreams. They offer ‘conjectures’ that can not be (dis)proven by anything and do not explain anything. If the psychoanalyst’s utterance of the conjecture causes the patient to feel better then the conjecture is proven (as in tested) and is found to be the ‘correct’ answer. If your conjecture makes ‘the patient’ (heterosexual men with guilt about their fantasies about lesbians, or lesbians with issues about the heterosexual obsession with their sex habits?) feel more at peace, then your conjecture has proven therapeutically correct. So, if your just-so story does end up making people happier, then sure Rupert, your conjecture was the right one.
Thanks Curious.
What I have endeavoured to stress is how difficult it is to come up with genuinely satisfactory possibilities likely to account for more than a small minority of cases. The possibility I canvassed – and set forth initially, provocatively, as a polemical claim, to get a rise out of people – is one of the very few that might work beyond a small minority of cases, it seems to me. And my claim has quite a wide reach: it would account for instance for the extreme repugnance (at least consciously) to most straight men of images / fantasies of gay male sex, a kind of mirror image of the fascination that ‘lesbian’ sex seems to have for many straight men. None of the comments above have addressed that aspect of the promise of my conjecture.
Although you still don’t seem to think so, I _share_ your sense, and Jean’s, that there is room for multiple possibilities here. (You have misunderstood the ‘MUST’ of my earlier comment: It was in the CONTEXT of my supposition that there is identification (and disidentification) going on in these sexual scenes.) It is, again, just very hard to come up with possibilities that actually work or have plausibility, outside probably a small minority of cases. I don’t claim universal validity for my conjecture! I do claim that it is the only conjecture I have yet heard that has a reasonably general plausibility. It fits with my own limited experience of these matters, but that is only a very minor aspect of why I think my claim plausible (In part, because my own personal experience, as stated above, is not one of wild fascination with all things Sapphic.)
I do not share your faith in the power of science (which in any case does not have the naively falsificationist methodology it sounds like you presuppose) to make sound progress with regard to these kinds of questions. There is a place for a different ‘methodology’: that which Wittgenstein (and his Cavellian / Diamondian / later-Bakerian etc. followers) called ‘therapy’ and ‘acknowledgement’. It inherits from psychoanalysis at its best a different criterion of truth from that of science: acknowledgement by the person concerned, after honest and thoughtful reflection, in a context that encourages safety and converse. In profoundly-subtle and complex, emotionally-etc.-challenging, socially-embarrassing contexts, this is far more likely, it seems to me, to yield something of interest than are surveys, physiological stats, etc.
This blogpost of mine is the start of something, not the end of something. We’ll see what emerges, in days and years to come.
Rupert,
Thank you for most recent response. I think it speaks well of you.
If you have ‘endeavoured to stress how difficult it is to come up with genuinely satisfactory possibilities likely to account for more than a small minority of cases’ I think you have done so without saying so. Which is not to dispute the honesty of your assertion, rather it is say that you your intent appears to have been, as it were, to show this, or to lead people to realize this. The polemical claim you initially offered ‘to get a rise out of people’ did indeed succeed in doing that much. As it stood on its own – which is how blog postings usually have to stand – it seems, unsurprisingly, to have inspired little but disgust and derision. Now personally I believe I very was quick to accept your third comment as both sincere and more than an after-the-fact rationalization. But I cannot blame others for only judging your initial posting ‘in isolation’ and thus, naturally, rather harshly, as I did before your third comments were made visible to me.
None of the comments have addressed the hitherto unmentioned ‘aspect of the promise’ of your conjecture – that it would account for typical ‘straight’ responses to gay male sex – this is true. People cannot necessarily be expected to address things you have not previously mentioned. But I grant that your ‘just-so’ ‘identification’ story would indeed ‘explain’ that leopard’s spots. But we should be cautious here. A great deal of the nonsense Freud came out with showed promise as a way of ‘explaining’ things, though of course there was never any good reason to think the stories he wove from the classics were actually true.
You say I have misunderstood the ‘must’ of my earlier comment. I believe you but I wish you’d told me earlier that it was never supposed to be a valid inference, that you were just ‘supposing’ that because x happens in y that x ‘must’ happen in z. In my defence it does *look* like a (bad) argument. I believe it still stands as something worth saying – that we are not entitled to take a generalization about male responses to heterosexual sex and draw conclusions about responses to other forms of sex without argument. But I accept that you meant your ‘must’ in the way you say. Perhaps I have been dim, but no I had not fully appreciated that you do in fact share Jean and my sense “that there is room for multiple possibilities here” but at least I do not seem alone in this. And I am glad you do not claim universal validity for your conjecture on the basis of your experience (I truly don’t care how ‘limited’ or extensive it is – you need not protest your ‘innocence’ in such matters).
You say that you do not share my ‘faith’ in the power of science (about whose methodology I have not attempted to give any account) to make sound progress with regard to these kinds of questions. My faith in science is of this sort – if anything will explain why some guys ‘get off’ on watching ‘girl-girl action’ it will be science not philosophy. I grant that surveys and physiological stats might not yield much of interest to you. But there was very little about psychoanalysis ‘at its best’ that had anything to do with making truth-apt claims. Psychoanalysis did not have a ‘different’ criterion of truth, it had no criterion of truth, its ‘conjectures’ were ‘proven’ if belief in them made people feel better. That particular ‘game’ is best left in the historical bin it has been rightly consigned to by most philosophers and psychologists. There is little of it worth keeping. You say your blogspot on this topic is “not the end of something” and that is true, but I don’t believe it is the start of anything productive either. Sorry but I truly do not think anything of interest will emerge from your pseudoscience-sounding ‘therapy’ approach in the days and years to come. Freud’s work, overall, should act as warning: it is not something you should seek to emulate if you want to stay in the business of making truth-apt claims, and I think making truth-apt claims remains the business of philosophy.
I may, of course be wrong – good luck showing me that I am.
This is just more about the old issue of misunderstanding and fantasizing about the sexual behaviors of others. The article-to-article response game could go on for a long time before one can stop saying “What X do not understand about Y is….etc”. However, I’ll take a position to firmly question your stating that: “this also explains male hetero disgust for male homosexuality…which, for a hetero male, is unacceptable.” So poorly stated, or is it a joke? I’m not going to go through the obvious delimitation of the observation by claiming: Yeah, but are all straight man disgusted by homo-sex?, What is a straight man, indeed? What form of sex (position, performance, actor, etc) would or would not suit you?. I could go on but the word DISGUST is strong enough for me to use it as basic reaction to disprove your claims. Following the trend of generalizations and sharing of one’s own personal experiences, I wonder namely why heteros tend to be so “disgusted” by same-sex scenes while homos (both lesbian and gay men) seem to enjoy hetero porn without attempting a decoding of their desired roles and further imagery. Is it possible to admit that one can enjoy any form of (good) sex despite the fact that one would not engage in a similar act if offered with the chance to do so? Is it so difficult to admit that orgasms, sexual drift, sexual toys, etc. in IMAGES (and for that matter also anonymous online profiles) can be universally decoded as “exciting”, “inspiring”, regardless of the sexual identities of the actors implicated? Or is it just too late to admit that cultural factors prevent hetero men to really masturbate at the contemplation of gay sex? I bet sex as a philosophical topic is not so challenging.
Being a gay man, I don’t fantasize about lesbians. However, it doesn’t disgust me to be confronted with lesbian sex in public culture. Why?
Oh, excuse my poor English. It should have read: Is it just too late to admit that cultural factors prevent hetero men from really masturbating at the contemplation of gay sex? Sorry, for that…
Curious:
I’m not sure whether Rupert is doing philosophy here or not, and I don’t care much.
However, I do think that if this subject is pursued more carefully, something may come of it.
If Rupert wants to continue with this topic or with related topics, I suggest that instead of plunging into the sea with a question that few of us are willing to answer with complete frankness, he begin with smaller questions, with questions which demand lesser degrees of frankness, of openness and of commitment.
A good detective does not start out asking the person questioned whether he committed the murder or not. He or she asks dumb questions, simple questions,
repeated questions, trying to get a sense of the terrain, so to speak, of who is who.
A good therapist or a good novelist (Conrad comes to mind) also starts out indirectly, feeling out the terrain before he or she zeroes in, simply because we first have to know what or whom we are zeroing in on.
Re Trasdental June 25th:-
I do not think it is a cultural thing. Nor do I think it is disgust which stops a heterosexual man from masturbation due to contemplation of Homosexual practice by his own sex. Surely it is merely because the heterosexual is not aroused by Homosexual practice performed by men. He may also be disgusted, but he may, notwithstanding, be disgusted at a certain Heterosexual practice but still find that arousing. I do not know but I assume the same goes for Homosexuals contemplating Heterosexual practice. I am not considering the case of the Bisexual at this time, and I guess there are exceptions to what I state above; but in the main I think it may well be the case. John Searle has pointed out that the social sciences are powered by the mind, and this is the source of their weakness vis-à-vis the natural sciences. What we get from the Social sciences at their best is theories of pure and applied intentionality. This in itself seems to be why discussions such as this, are not likely to reach any general firm explanations as to what our future expectancies my be for the behaviour of any human being,
Don Bird: Of course, many (how many actually?) heterosexual men are exclusively aroused by women only, and, yes, I see that as being more likely natural than nurtural. Nevertheless, there are many who somehow are indoctrinated and sometimes forced to see themselves as heterosexual while in fact being bisexual!! So, surely, culture has a lot to do with the current attitude towards homosexuality in the heterosexually dominated society. Even without recalling Kinsey’s descriptions and predictions, it’s obvious out of my own experience, at least, that many men repress their homosexual inclinations. This is particularly true when these inclinations are not as urgent as in a Kinsey’s degree-6 strictly homosexual person. Anyway, this is only the side story in my comment, because what I really aimed at hitting was Dr Read’s claim that disgust prevent self-identified “straight” men from, say, tolerating gay sex, if not enjoying it. Therefore, we agree for the most part, as I can see: It’s a person-by-person matter, there is no rule, nature may have a greater role but is not free from nurtural influence, and I would add that any disgust provoked by other’s sexuality is primitive and controllable.
Don Bird: Please, do not assume anything about complex behavioral values and facts in humans. Your assumptions are double-wrong. Firstly, by assuming that all self-identified straight men are exclusively heterosexual. Secondly, by suggesting that homosexuals would display a similar pattern of exclusivity. In fact it’s fundamentally easier for a homosexual to enjoy heterosexual sex (following Dr Read’s fantasy and actor replacement story) since at least one of the partners is fully desirable. However, I’ll try to go beyond that simple association to tell you that a homosexual person can also be degree 4 or 5 in Kinsey’s scale (I’m degree 5 and still can enjoy some occasional sexuality with women). Even more, one can actually enjoy watching sexuality without concentrating at the bodily expression of it but rather at the pleasure it produces in the actors or performers. Just like classical arts, in which sex and nudity is deliberately portrayed in a manner which might be exiting across the different sexual preferences, and which aims at reaching the divine.
Don Bird: Sorry that I have to split my comments by question. I do not understand your claim that “He (the homosexual) may also be disgusted, but he may, notwithstanding, be disgusted at a certain Heterosexual practice but still find that arousing”. How comes? I insist, disgust is too strong a word in this context. When you watch sex between two people, one whom you like and another whom you do not like sexually, are you disgusted by the way the ugly touches the beautiful? I bet most people will just focus on the pleasure (faked or not) and the body of the desired person. This is as applicable to hetero men watching a couple of lesbians, where only one is wanted, as it’s to a gay/lesbian watching hetero sex. Any other reason for a combined disgust/excitement, I would connect it to (unfounded) moral banning of the relevant sexual practice or object of desire. Nothing more.
Re S Wallerstein:-
“A good detective does not start out asking the person questioned whether he committed the murder or not.He or she asks dumb questions, simple questions,
repeated questions, trying to get a sense of the terrain, so to speak, of who is who.”
I think a good point has been made here. When I first read Dr Read’s article I was somewhat more interested in the person rather than what he was saying, Why did he introduce this subject,why did he he write so vividly, effusively and emotively on intervening in a lesbian encounter? There was no distancing of himself, in the writing. Apparently based on little research, he was holding forth on aspects of sexuality, which emanated from either his own experiences and or his own imagination. I have no problem with that, or the subject matter, all humans do it. My problem was why he seems to make a generalisation to all mankind. I at least wanted to get as you say a sense of the terrain, who is who, who is this person, what exactly is his remit? I don’t know if this be philosophy or not, more like psychoanalysis possibly but interesting, nevertheless.
Had Dr Read, a Wittgenstein scholar, written on that subject, one’s attention would have been immediately directed to the work of that particular philosopher rather than to the nature of the person who was writing and exactly for what purpose, and why he took stance he did towards the subject.
Curious: You say: “My faith in science is of this sort – if anything will explain why some guys ‘get off’ on watching ‘girl-girl action’ it will be science not philosophy.” This is, as I’ve already implied, a deep difference between us. You can get some sense of the difference, if you want, by reading my book THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE. I am profoundly sceptical of how much there is to learn from ‘social science’ and ‘human science’; I think philosophy and its different mode of approach is more promising. And by that I mean philosophy in alliance with the inheritance of what is best in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. Vast amounts of those traditions are rubbish – but mostly the scientistic parts.
hi Trasdental. You ask: “What is a straight man, indeed?” Good question. But if you read my post and my comments carefully, you will find that the way I have been using the term “straight man” is autobiographically-nominalistic. I.e. Men who think they are straight count under this definition as straight men. It is precisely for this reason that they are likely to experience disgust at male homosexuality – and you are not living in the real world AT ALL if you deny the huge widespreadness of such disgust. The disgust, I am suggesting, is a result of the revulsion consequent upon being ‘forced’ (in the course e.g. of viewing images of two men sexually-together) into a position of desiring a man: when one’s ‘identity’ is as a man who desires only women.
So it is likely to be male insecurity about sexual identity that reinforces or even creates such disgust.
Don Bird: Well, I wrote what and as I did for various reasons. Among them, relevant to your comment, are these:
1) I was annoyed by Bindel’s foolishness in asserting that she knew what motivated straight men.
2) I was annoyed by Bindel’s theory about what motivated straight men in relation to lesbianism being both an unpleasant attack on straight men and incredibly implausible, in relation to the phenomena.
3) I thought I had a better idea about what in many cases was actually likely to be motivating straight men in relation to this phenomenon, and so decided to try it out on people.
Rupert,
Again thank you for your comments, again they speak well of your character.
I too am quite skeptical about how much there is to learn from ’social science’ and ‘human science.’ Vast amounts of those traditions are rubbish too. But what I continue to contend is that if anything will explain the phenomena that interests you, it will be science (if anything will work that will, and this is true even if there’s no reason to suspect that will work). This question has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy, it is not of philosophical interest and philosophers, as philosophers, have nothing useful to say about it. What little is of any use in the fields of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘explaining’ anything. What is supposedly useful about psychoanalysis and psychotherapy is that they can make some people with emotional problems feel better about themselves. It is worth noting that there is nothing to confirm psychotherapy is an effective ‘treatment’, and there is no good argument why it might be. These ‘experts on sadness’ continue to make a very nice living doing a great deal of harm to a great many vulnerable people. Thus when you say you want philosophy to work “in alliance with the inheritance of what is best” in ‘psychoanalysis and psychotherapy’, you may as well be saying ‘mediumship and faith healing’. And, more depressingly, you say you want philosophy to work with this dismal ‘inheritance’ to answer the question of why some boys like girl-on-girl action? Really? This is your vision of philosophy? I gather Wittgenstein warned against trying to shit higher than you arse – but did he mean to suggest ‘his’ philosophers should try for lower?
Re Trasdental June 25nd.
I think we may have a problem of sexual orientation here. As a heterosexual I find it difficult to imagine what is is in other men which attracts and arouses you. Personally I do not apply or use the word disgust it is a much bandied about word used by many concerning merely things they dislike. Thus I do not find sexual activity of any nature disgusting. Paedophilia for instance is a sexual orientation which is in fact harmful to Children so we have to detect and control those who are born with such desires. Recently I told a friend that if I thought it would cure my chronic back pain I would indulge in a homosexual act provided the other party was free from dangerous infection and who would be prepared to perform with a pretty passive partner who gritted his teeth closed his eyes tightly and tried to ponder philosophical problems to take his mind of things. My friend said it was disgusting. I thought it amusing and could well consider such a remedy for my back problem if it worked. Perhaps you think this suggests I am a little homosexual. Well I don’t know and don’t care. I am not assuming anything about the complex behavioural values and and facts in humans That to a large extent is what I find faulty in what Dr Read has said. I tried to classify the reactions of differing people with the proviso that I did say I did not know for certain but “assumed”. Unless I make some assumptions in accordance with my experience as a heterosexual and my observations of homosexuals it is difficult to make any sort of case here. It was not my intention to state what is in fact the case. Out of this I am interested to learn from you that Homosexuals find it easier to indulge in Heterosexual activity.
You see out of all this one can only speak from one’s own viewpoint, but it is important to remember that this is not necessarily the view of others. What I cannot understand and perhaps you can advise me accordingly is the fact that apparently a considerable number of homosexuals find it necessary to parade their sexuality by means of parades in public and the like. Personally I rarely if ever consider my sexuality it does not seem to be an issue; why would I want to publicise it, who would be interested? Similarly some claim that generally Homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals is that the case do you think? I have already pointed out the problems with endeavours to explain human behaviour in the same way as phenomena in the natural sciences is studied. Curious has also expanded on that point at some length. It is obviously here that we find such difficulty in coming to terms with behaviours differing from ours.
Curious:
I’ve never had psychoanalysis, but I’ve been in psychotherapy and I would not consider it to be the equivalent of faith-healing.
If I dream that I am beating my loved brother’s head in with a rock, then I don’t think that surmising that I feel hostility towards my loved brother (or that I am ambivalent towards him) is an
implausible explanation, although it may not be a “scientific” one.
I agree that if I dream that I see a bull and a psychoanalyst decides that a bull means that I hate my father, there is little evidence of that, besides the analyst’s sense that given the Oedipus complex, I hate my father.
Most of us have feelings of hostility or of sexuality which do not appear in our day-time consciousness and which do appear fairly explicitly in dreams (not as bulls which symbolize father-figures) and becoming aware of them does help us know ourselves.
Knowing ourselves, we can live wiser lives, I believe.
What’s more, a good psychotherapist, admittedly one not bound by dogmatic Freudian assumptions, may often sense aspects of oneself that one does not see, for example, that I reject those who try to get close to me under the pretext of intellectual superiority.
Once again, that’s a step towards self-knowledge, and although I don’t think that it’s a rule that applies to everyone, for me at least the unexamined life is not worth living.
Dr Ruppert: I’m afraid you keep replicating the inconsistency. First you write: “Men who think they are straight count under this definition as straight men.” Fine, that itself explains the disgust when considering that these men might have moral issues that prevent them from understanding their own sexual potential. And, of course, I am aware of the “widespreadness” of the associated disgust.
But then you come up with the assertion that: “The disgust, I am suggesting, is a result of the revulsion consequent upon being ‘forced’ (in the course e.g. of viewing images of two men sexually-together) into a position of desiring a man: when one’s ‘identity’ is as a man who desires only women.”
Is it banana or apple? I can‘t, really can‘t understand why people would be disgusted by something which does not at all concern them essentially. If the majority of the disgusted guys were truly 100% heterosexual you would probably have a weak point based on your own claim that these men are unable to see themselves as taking part in a homosexual act. However, most of them are predicted to be bisexual to a certain extent! Moreover, the disgust itself associated to uninteresting, inexperienced, sexual practices is something that must be questioned. I do not believe this disgust is natural, and the counter-observation to that can be that most gay men are not disgusted by lesbian sex, and vice versa. Thus, I blame religion, indoctrinations of all sorts, fault upbringing, cheap media, euphemistic and largely correlative social research, and political correctness for the widespread heterosexual disgust towards homosexuality.
Don Bird: I’m not going to discuss the gay parade-issue, as I wouldn’t either discuss here TV or the religious parades. I’m just going to tell you that I NEVER said “Homosexuals find it easier to indulge in Heterosexual activity”. Absolutely wrong. What I stated is that some homosexuals are in fact bisexuals who prefer same-sex relationships, and the same occurs among the heterosexuals. Obviously, that does mean that all homosexuals have the potential to enjoy a heterosexual relationship, and it does not mean either most homosexuals do.
What’s perhaps my toughest point here, and which none of you have come close to question, is that even among the most extreme homosexuals disgust towards heterosexuality, the opposite same-sex, or pure bisexuality is rarely found. Why?
Don Bird: I’m not going to discuss the gay parade-issue, as I wouldn’t either discuss here TV or the religious parades. I’m just going to tell you that I NEVER said “Homosexuals find it easier to indulge in Heterosexual activity”. Absolutely wrong. What I stated is that some homosexuals are in fact bisexuals who prefer same-sex relationships, and the same occurs among those heterosexuals WHO ARE (potentially) BISEXUAL but PREFER DIFFERENT-SEX RELATIONSHIPS. Obviously, that does NOT mean that all homosexuals have the potential to enjoy a heterosexual relationship, and it does not mean either most homosexuals do.
What’s perhaps my toughest point here, and which none of you have come close to question, is that even among the most extreme homosexuals disgust towards heterosexuality, the opposite same-sex, or pure bisexuality is rarely found. Why?
Hi Amos,
Sorry I haven’t replied to you earlier.
-“I’ve been in psychotherapy and I would not consider it to be the equivalent of faith-healing.”
If only you had trusted in our Lord … as the American Cancer Society reports: “faith healing may promote peace of mind, reduce stress, relieve pain and anxiety, and strengthen the will to live”… its not too late to send your $20 … You are, of course, quite right to pull me up about my rhetoric. I don’t believe the two are entirely equivalent – children do not die unnecessarily of cancer in the USA because their parents put their faith in psychotherapy instead of medicine. I shall try to say something useful about what I think they have in common though.
“I do think that if this subject is pursued more carefully, something may come of it”
Rupert asserts that ‘philosophy in alliance with the inheritance of what is best in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy’ is a more promising approach when it comes to explaining why many boys ‘get off’ on girls ‘getting it on’ with other girls than science. I’ve suggested that philosophy may as well be in alliance with the inheritance of what is best in ‘mediumship and faith healing’ if it is going to seek to solve that particular puzzle. Rupert thinks “psychoanalysis at its best” has bequeathed us “a different criterion of truth from that of science: acknowledgment by the person concerned, after honest and thoughtful reflection, in a context that encourages safety and converse.” Now I have asserted that “Psychoanalysis did not have a ‘different’ criterion of truth, it had no criterion of truth, its ‘conjectures’ were ‘proven’ if belief in them made people feel better.” I stand by this. Your brother-hitting dream might ‘mean’ nothing more than ink blots, and show nothing more than indigestion. Alternatively it might be that your dreams are not explained by underlying subconscious hostility but that the dreams explain the subconscious hostility – perhaps womens’ dreams of babies do not reflect their desire for children but cause it?. Absolutely, dream interpretations are in no way ‘scientific’ however plausible some interpretations may sound.
In any case I also went off on a bit of a tangent disputing the idea that psychotherapy is even an effective treatment for mental health problems and contending that many of its practitioners do rather well out of causing unwell people great harm (as I think is the case). My contentions about psychotherapy’s general lack of therapeutic value (except as a placebo of sorts) and its causing of actual harm would – if warranted – make the ‘talking cure’ seem somewhat akin to seeking relief for your anxiety from ‘the spirit world’ or submitting oneself to faith healing for depression. Now you think I am quite wrong in characterizing psychotherapy as a ‘treatment’ that does no more good than supernatural twaddle. You say you have had a positive experience with it (some say the same of faith healing). But ‘psychotherapy’ can cover all manner of things. There is evidence-based clinical psychology, with its many failings but its connection to medicine and science. And there is the art of the irresponsible wooly parasites who attempt to persuade very vulnerable people that science is not important and sell their own ‘talking cures’ and ‘just-so’ stories when it would be safer if they were just selling healing crystals. So perhaps I have made an unwarranted sweeping generalization of my own. But I do think psychotherapists (subconsciously) persuade more than they discover the subconscious – though some may, fortuitously, be persuading somebody of a theory that just so happens to be true).
In any case, even if warranted, the ‘psychotherapy is not even a good treatment’ line is not really much of an objection to what Rupert proposes because I don’t believe Rupert proposes to cure any psychological ills. He merely hopes, on the subject that interests him, to solicit ‘honest and thoughtful reflection, in a context that encourages safety and converse’ (which, of course, was not an unknown scenario prior to Freud). So it is not that pertinent, as an objection to Rupert’s research program if the ‘talking cure’ does not actually cure. All that is relevant is whether, in principle, something like a psychotherapy session without the intention of psychological therapy might uncover the truths that would confirm Rupert’s identification thesis. (The only ‘therapy’ that would be that of the philosopher in the session exposing fallacies in the subject’s thinking about his thinking presumably). So might ‘honest and thoughtful reflection, in a context that encourages safety and converse’ lead a subject to find an answer that he is not consciously of aware that explains his own interest in lesbian sex? Yes, I daresay it might, but it would have nothing to do with psychoanalysis, except in the sense that it would more often involve somebody with an untrue theory subconsciously persuading the test subject said theory is true.
Trasdental: I’m sorry, but you are just not succeeding in understanding me. If you want to stay in this discussion, please try to read what I have written again. Hopefully you will then realise that you and I are in almost complete agreement. My POINT is in part that disgust is a result of ‘repression’ / of a tacit WEAKNESS in one’s certitude of one’s identity. In other words: self-identifying as ‘straight’ (Note how often I use scare-quotes around the word, btw) is entirely compatible with having significant bisexual tendencies. The disgust, as opposed to merely lack of interest, is in significant a _result_ of the terror at such tendencies in one.
S.Wallerstein: Thanks for your remarks on therapy etc. . Absolutely. It’s about self-knowledge: It’s the same quest as Socrates sent us philosophers on, a long time ago… And so, to answer Curious, when Curious says: “And, more depressingly, you say you want philosophy to work with this dismal ‘inheritance’ to answer the question of why some boys like girl-on-girl action? Really? This is your vision of philosophy? I gather Wittgenstein warned against trying to shit higher than you arse – but did he mean to suggest ‘his’ philosophers should try for lower?” Your metaphors of ‘lower’ etc. give you away, Curious: You tacitly despise the body and desire. I do not. I think that understanding human sexuality is one of the highest tasks of the quest for self-knowledge, and that that sexuality itself has to capacity to be beautiful, deep, etc. . The widespread straight male adoration of / fascination with ‘lesbianism’ is a mystery. It can I believe provide a huge clue: to how human sexuality actually works. The mechanism of vicarious identification which I propose (which also, incidentally, is central to my understanding of ‘Film as Philosophy’: see http://www.scribd.com/doc/19370846/READ-Film-as-Philosophy-Essays-on-Cinema-After-Witt-Gen-Stein-and-Cavell ) would at last explain it, along with various other phenomena such as straight male disgust at gay male (as opposed to gay female) sexuality.
Being a Wittgensteinian, I of course agree with you, Curious, that explanation in the scientific sense of that term is not the province of philosophers. When I use the term ‘explain’, I mean it in the criterially-different sense that I have outlined: it is dependent upon reflective and emotionally-aware acknowledgement. Self-knowledge, in other words, socially attained.
Don Bird: Like others, you have I think misread the deliberately provocative tone of my original post. …Did readers think so little of me that they thought that my use of locutions such as ‘The real reason’ was supposed to imply that I thought that all evidence, all other voices etc. were irrelevant? On the contrary: I was precisely looking for voices to interact intelligently with my conjecture.. The excellent thing however about your debate with Trasdental, DB, is that it starts to reveal exactly the kind of self-knowledge that I am looking for, in order to support [or undermine] my claim. For example: That many homosexual men, according to Trasdental above, would find it easier to take pleasure in images of heterosexual sex than vice versa is exactly what my conjecture would predict. For gay men (and gay women too) can find a vicarious place of identification in images of straight sex which straight men cannot find in images of gay sex.
The thing that got my goat about Bindel’s article was her blithe thoughtless and hubristic insistence, at the start of an article entitled ‘What heterosexual men don’t understand about lesbians’, that she did understand what made straight men tick, in relation to lesbians. I’ve been accused of a similar hubris in this comments-string. But, while I am perfectly open to alternative accounts of why so many straight men enjoy ‘lesbian’ fantasies etc., at this point in the discussion I still don’t find any account that has as wide and deep a reach as that that I offered in my original post. Jean K came up with an interesting hypothesis, which may well account for a few cases. Another possibility, which hasn’t been mentioned here, is the famous fantasy of ‘If a lesbian experienced sex with ME, then they would turn straight’ / ‘All a lesbian really needs is to meet the right man / cock’. But, like Jean’s idea, this one is in my view very unlikely to explain more than a fraction of male Sapphophilia: because it would need to be constantly hanging over one’s mind, somehow constantly there and constantly plausible, in order to make the attraction of all things Sapphic so…sexually constant as it is for a lot of straight men. One great virtue then of my suggestion is that it seems, uniquely, to offer an explanation for the ongoing and high-excitement quality of many straight men’s ‘lesbian’ fantasies: If I am right, my suggestion gets ‘inside’ these fantasies, and inhabits them in their phenomenological density. The attraction is so constant, because the experience never palls (though it may be exhausting), and does not require any conscious thought hanging over it: it is itself an experience of constant flux. As Heraclitus might have put it: The river of straight male ‘lesbian’ fantasies is never the same from one moment to the next. Its flux is such that if you step into it twice it will be so different from one moment to the next — in terms of who in the couple of being desired, and who identified with — that you almost wouldn’t recognise it…
Curious:
My dream of hitting my brother (I actually don’t have a brother) may be the result of indigestion. Of course.
However, by the same logic, my seeing a red light when fully awake, I cross the street may be the result of an evil genius deceiving me.
I tend to think that my awareness of something, be it in a dream and waking life, signifies something, perhaps only indigestion, perhaps a idea or wish or fear or impulse or desire, which it might be interesting to pay some attention to, if I wish to know myself better. Of course, it’s wise to pay attention to one’s indigestion.
It looks like you’re not terrified enough yet…You certainly wrote, in the same context as for those potentially bisexual and self-repressed men, that “when one’s ‘identity’ is as a man who desires only women.”
What is identity then? I can see the quotation marks but identity can certainly loose them. Unless it’s elsewhere specified, you may add an adjective to differentiate, for instance, the inner or true identity from the projected or faked identity. So I can “succeed” in understanding you.
Anyway, the main point of your post is weak not because of the identity problem but because you attempt to relate prejudice with natural – sexual – reaction, without paying especial attention to evidence which clearly refute your proposal.
@Dr Ruppert Read: It looks like you’re not terrified enough yet…You certainly wrote, in the same context as for those potentially bisexual and self-repressed men, that “when one’s ‘identity’ is as a man who desires only women.”
What is identity then? I can see the quotation marks but identity can certainly loose them. Unless it’s elsewhere specified, you may add an adjective to differentiate, for instance, the inner or true identity from the projected or faked identity. So I can “succeed” in understanding you.
Anyway, the main point of your post is weak not because of the identity problem but because you attempt to relate prejudice with natural – sexual – reaction, without paying especial attention to evidence which clearly refute your proposal.
Trasdental: The scare-quotes around the word ‘identity’ were precisely intended to highlight that identity is fragile and often based on repression etc. . I.e. One’s ‘identity’ as a man who desires only women is precisely something likely to have been constructed against tendencies within one toward bisexuality etc. . I.e. Disgust against homosexuality is likely to be precisely a defence against one’s own homosexual tendencies.
I hope one of the things that might be stimulating and perhaps even beautiful about the idea that I have endeavoured to express in my article (and since) is the thought that human sexuality, especially at the level of fantasy, depends quite heavily on vicarious identification. Or, to say the same thing more nicely: on a felt or imaginative empathy. That was what frustrated me about Bindel’s off-the-cuff attack on straight male attraction to lesbianism: That it missed the deeper possibility..: that such attraction might express empathy, attempted inhabitation, even envy.
I think it is an exciting and encouraging thought that empathy and imagined inhabitation of a point of view not one’s own might be playing a role even in a sexual behaviour so apparently banal as straight male fascination with ‘lesbians’.
Ok, Dr Read, finally clear.
Dear Rupert
Your ‘philosophical suggestion’ that I “tacitly *despise* the body and desire’ is interesting as a psychoanalyst’s conjecture. Presumably this is something locked in my subconscious that ‘therapy’ might bring out – self-knowledge I might acknowledge after suitably ‘honest and thoughtful reflection, in a context that encourages safety and converse.’ Your therapeutic suggestion about my psycho-sexual subconscious nature is something I am quite happy to discuss with you if you so desire.
I shall, of course, refrain from making therapeutic conjectures about what your enthused talk of the delights of watching and imagining scenes of Sapphic love, your own identification with women in such scenes and your unnecessary protestations that engaging in said erotic fantasies is not something you do very much at all ‘gives away’ about your own psycho-sexual nature. I respect and agree with your contention that this is none of my business. And I am not at all interested in speculating about whether you are repressed when it comes to discussing your own sexuality, and whether your identification with lesbian women is indicative of gender confusion etc etc. (That latter being the kind of twaddle that you might expect a psychotherapist to ‘lead’ you to). In any case I certainly believe you when you assert that *you* do not despise the body and desire (I just didn’t realize that I did).
Clearly we have quite different conceptions about what philosophy is, and along with others I am not at all sure what you are doing is philosophy. (Do you get that a lot?) I believe ‘understanding human sexuality’ is indeed a worthwhile endeavour, but it is one to be left for science. I think philosophers, as philosophers, would be best passing over that subject in silence, as they have, nothing useful to say about it. The widespread straight male adoration of / fascination with ‘lesbianism’ is indeed a mystery, but it is not a philosophical mystery – it a minor scientific one. And Ludwig’s children, whilst they wear their ‘philosopher’ badge, might be as well sticking to puzzles not mysteries. I think philosophy should have grander ambitions than hooking up with ‘touchy feely’ talking cure methods and ‘leading’ men to realize why they ‘get off’ on girl/girl action (and collating the results to validate ‘identification’ theories?). I certainly don’t know that this is the type of thing that Wittgenstein would want philosophy departments to devote themselves to. Presumably East Anglia won’t fund it and your research program will not extend far beyond your office.
Sexuality itself does indeed have the capacity to be beautiful and deep. Philosophers, talking as philosophers, about the ‘male adoration of / fascination with ‘lesbianism’ seemingly do not.
best wishes
James
Amos,
“My dream of hitting my brother (I actually don’t have a brother) may be the result of indigestion. Of course. However, by the same logic, my seeing a red light when fully awake, I cross the street may be the result of an evil genius deceiving me.”
I think we must draw a distinction between hyperbolic scepticism about the rule-governed and relatively unsurprising real world of our waking lives and healthy scepticism about the idea that the incoherent experiences of the dream state have any meaning. There is a difference between speculating that there is a physical cause for a hallucination or dream and looking at the real world and thinking it might be a hallucination or dream.
Curious:
I’m not sure why skepticism about dreams having meaning is “healthy”, as you claim.
If I were to hallucinate something, I would analyze that hallucination seeking its meaning.
I cannot prove that dreams and hallucination have a meaning, but of course you cannot prove that they don’t.
Two ways of living our dreams seem to present themselves here.
One lives one’s life (and dreams) according to certain basic unproven assumptions.
In this case, your assumptions and mine differ.
“I cannot prove that dreams and hallucination have a meaning, but of course you cannot prove that they don’t.”
Hi Amos,
There is the question of who bears the burden of proof (consider religious claims) but if interpreting your dreams works for you, then who am I to decry your intuition? We do indeed live by unproven assumptions, we have to.
Curious:
So you think that dreams are just brain static, with pictures?
I could argue that the fact that my brain static depicts the sea, not a mountain, means something, says something about my “inner life”, about my mindset.
Maybe you’ll deny that the expression “inner life” is meaningful. This discussion could get complicated.
By the way, I doubt that you’ll argue that no dreams mean anything, since I think that we all have dreamed of searching for a bathroom and then woken to find that we need to urinate or defecate.
‘we all have dreamed of searching for a bathroom and then woken to find that we need to urinate or defecate’
I truly don’t know that I have. But how many times have you been dreaming but not about searching for a bathroom then woken up needing to pee? We always remember the times a friend calls just when we were thinking of him, we forget how often we think of a friend and they don’t call
(or indeed been dreaming about searching for a bathroom then woken up not needing to pee?)
Curious:
I don’t claim that dreams foretell the future, so the fact that a friend whom one dreams of calls or does not call is irrelevant here.
The dream about peeing is more relevant since it’s a message from one “department” of the self to another.
“I don’t claim that dreams foretell the future,so the fact that a friend whom one dreams of calls or does not call is irrelevant here.”
I know you don’t imagine that dreams predict the the future. All I am getting at is the fact we remember the times we were thinking of Bob then Bob called. We forget how often we thought of Bob and he didn’t call, or how often he called when we didn’t think of him. I’m suggesting that we can attach significance to events without warrant. And I think that people can ascribe significance to coincidences, meaning I think they recall them and can read more into them than there is. That said I do not assert you are completely wrong, I just find find no reason to share your belief that dreams have any more meaning than ink blots myself.
You know Bob, Curious? That’s really weird! He’s a friend of mine too. Funny guy.
The bedroom is already a very crowded place. Can we perhaps ask philosophy to wait outside?
Hello Andreas,
That’s really spooky – Bob and I were just talking about you.
Re Curious 26th June:-
“I just find find no reason to share your belief that dreams have any more meaning than ink blots myself.”
I am not sure what you mean here. If you are saying that dreams have no relevance to anything then I do not agree. Incidentally Rorschach inkblots, do seem to convey different meanings to different people. I am now wondering if there is anything which can have no meaning whatsoever to any Human being. So if I have understood you correctly dreams, and I am assuming you do not include Day dreams here, have no meaning or relevance to anything. My own experience does not seem to support this. I presently find myself in a position where I no longer need to work for a living. Whilst I was not unhappy working I did not much like it. There were many other things which interested me far more, but did not pay so well. These things I had to squeeze in to my working life. I frequently dream about my working life, not unpleasant, but always somewhat discomforting. There is often a problem to be solved which appears in some sort of symbolic form. Fortunately my dreams on awakening are soon forgotten never so far to return in my waking life. In my opinion these dreams are very relevant and I would say meaningful. I try not to analyse too deeply (it is probably due to an underlying discontent in earlier terms, which was repressed). I prefer to remember past events when my brain was having wakeful experiences and these memories, including working for a living, are generally, far from unpleasant.
amazing how such a fuss can be constructed on the basis of a flawed proposition: Namely that straight men are fascinated by Lesbianism..
If there is anything more tedious than a man telling you about his girlfriend, its a gay man telling you about hos boyfriend, or a lesbian telling you about her girlfriend.
Except perhaps people trying to write articles about it all.
Is only a certain cultural relativism that insists that Sex is fascinating whoever is doing it. In fact mostly (unless you are doing it yourself) it is deeply boring.
Re Leo Smith 27th June
Doing it oneself does seem deeply boring at times.
“Doing it oneself does seem deeply boring at times.”
Invite a friend.
well it’s the friend who is being deeply bored.
‘Thanks’ Leo. It is always useful to have someone like you comment, to remind us all just how deep are the psychical forces of denial. Anyone who thinks that lots of ‘straight’ men are not turned on in a surprisingly high degree by images or fantasies of lesbian sex might as well get straight into bed with the 9-11 ‘troofers’ and the climate ‘sceptics’.
I always love the person who claims that because I don’t feel the same way they do, I am in denial of my feelings.
And that gives them some form of intellectual superiority.
Perhaps I have transcended my sexuality, and am the person not in denial of it. So I don’t feel the need to lust after people who don’t lust after me.
And actually have that choice.
Prime facie, those who, on the basis on their own experience, deny Julie Bindel’s assertion that: “Straight men have long had a fascination with lesbianism” (as in the sex lives of actual lesbians) should not be likened to ‘9/11′ conspiracy theorists and subjected to two-cent psycho-sexual analysis.
I have been ‘diagnosed’ by Dr Read as somebody who despises the body and desire because I do not share his belief that philosophers should be engaging in ‘psychotherapy-like’ sessions to try to find out why those men who do ‘get off’ on pornographic parodies of lesbian sexuality are indeed so aroused by it. So Leo is not alone in being assessed as being psychologically ill-adjusted by Rupert because he doesn’t appear to Rupert to be agreeing with Rupert (he also asserts you are a ‘prude’ if you find it distasteful for a man to wax so very lyrically about Sapphic lovemaking in a philosophy forum as Rupert likes to).
I presume Dr Read is continuing in his stated aim to ‘get a rise out of people.’ Charity demands we must assume Rupert’s rhetoric (a good name for a blog no?) is part of some ‘therapeutic’ technique – and not merely a sign that this disciple of Wittgenstein shares his master’s arrogance, whilst lacking his master’s wit.
as a lesbian interested in philosophy, this is the most boring thread ever.
Don,
Rorschach inkblots, which were what I was alluding to do indeed seem to convey different meanings to different people. Shown test plate I and asked what you see, you say ‘a moth’, Amos ‘a bat’. I suppose, though I find this a slightly unnatural way of talking, you could say that what the ink blot ‘means’ to you is a moth, and what it means to Amos is a bat. But you could just as well be lying in the park gazing at the clouds rather than submitting to the pseudoscience of the Rorschach test. Asked what you see when you look at a given cloud, you might say you see a rabbit and Amos a duck. Again you could say that what the cloud ‘means’ to you is a rabbit and to Amos a duck. In both scenarios there is simply no question of who – if either of you – is right on the matter. There is no ‘correct’ way to read clouds or inkblots (though both you and Amos would be deemed to have given psychologically ‘normal’ responses to the ink blots – unlike me who genuinely sees a face of sorts). Now this is all of course quite different from the case where you and Amos are puzzling over the meaning of a garbled phone message or a badly scrawled note. There is a fact of the matter in these cases. Now I’m saying that I find no reason to think there is any fact of the matter concerning what a dream ‘means’. I think a dream is more akin to a cloud or an inkblot than a garbled message. And it is in that sense that I say, I find no cause to think a dream means more than an inkblot. Plausible as Amos may find the psychoanalyst’s conjecture that his dream of attacking his brother shows he has subconscious hostility towards his brother, I don’t think this is what the dream ‘means’ – until Amos interprets it to mean that. This is not to *assert* that it could not be helpful – or reasonable – for a therapist/friend to ask Amos to reflect on how he feels about his brother if he frequently reports dreaming of doing his brother violence – although a number of other reflections might be thought just as likely to be profitable too.
Now clearly the contents of our dream lives are causally connected to the experiences of our waking lives. I do not mean to deny that. And there is a sense in which we can be tripped up by the use of the word ‘means’. We might say ‘fire means smoke’, or ‘smoke means fire’. Bad dreams about your working life might be plausibly be said to ‘mean’ you suffered a great deal of stress during your working life, something you cannot be expected to simply ‘get over’ as soon as you retired i.e. it is not at all implausible to say the experiences caused the bad dreams and the bad dreams are a sign of the stress and its affetc. But also I speculate – merely speculate – that we may sometimes be getting the causal story the wrong way round or only seeing one side of it. I suggested that instead of Amos’ brother-beating dreams being explained by hostility, such hostility might be explained by said dreams. And here I raised a thought. It seems plausible to say of a young woman that her frequent dreams of having a baby mean she wants a child – but, my suggestion (pure conjecture) is that it is not the baby-wanting that explains the dreams but the dreams that explain the baby-wanting. I don’t believe we have got to the bottom of what is going on as far as dreams are concerned at all. But I don’t personally find any cause to think they can be correctly interpreted, even if (perhaps – and it’s a big perhaps) they can be usefully interpreted. As for the ‘searching for a bathroom’ then waking with the need to pee dreams that Amos reports – whilst I question whether he might forget how he might perhaps dream of searching for a bathroom but wake not needing to pee, or – more often – wake needing to pee after dreaming of something quite unconcerned with bathrooms – I do not assert that there is no possible way that the needs of the bladder might be making themselves known to our subconscious self or at least affecting our dream content. I just don’t know. (And how much of what we ‘recall’ as our dream content and narrative is a post-sleep ‘rationalization’ I don’t know either.) I will try to remember to think about it during my many increasingly many nightime trips to the bathroom. And I will suggest the possible meaning of dreams as something my better half might contemplate during sex – it may make a change from what colour to paint the lounge etc.
Curious:
We (human beings) interpret the world in terms of meaning. Yes.
Dreams have no meaning in themselves. Only language (sentences, words) has meaning.
Meaning is a property of language, not of dreams nor of clouds nor of inkblots nor of life (the meaning of life).
So, you’re right. When I dream of hitting my non-existent brother (I have a sister), I interpet that dream in terms of the way I already structure reality.
The dream in itself means nothing, just as darkening clouds in the sky mean nothing.
Yet if I see darkening clouds, I may say that they “mean” rain.
I sense that we’re getting confused about the use of “mean”.
Maybe you can find a better word than “mean” to carry on this conversation.
Just as the clouds “mean” rain, so the dream of hitting my non-existent brother may “mean” that I harbor a certain unrecognized hostility towards him.
If you find the relation between the dream of hitting my brother and hostility to be flimsy, let’s go back to my dream of searching for a bathroom and needing to pee. Doesn’t that dream “mean” that I need to pee?
Yes, I need to pee much more frequently than I did when younger, but that’s why I’m so familiar with such dreams.
Greetings Amos
- I sense that we’re getting confused about the use of “mean”.
I think you are right. Sorry if I’ve caused confusion and misread you. Dropping talk of the ‘meaning’ of dreams might make communication easier between us. But perhaps we also need to work out what people mean when they talk of the meaning of dreams – it is a common way of talking. I suspect many people do not accept that “Dreams have no meaning in themselves” though I think we are in agreement.
‘I may say that they “mean” rain’ – ‘clouds mean rain’ was actually on my mind when I was writing. ‘Just as the clouds “mean” rain, so the dream of hitting my non-existent brother may “mean” that I harbor a certain unrecognized hostility towards him.” Is it utterly silly to suggest that you dream of hitting your brother is caused by your unrecognized hostility towards him? No. The dreams may, I suppose, be indicative of suppressed hostility. ‘My dream of searching for a bathroom and needing to pee. Doesn’t that dream “mean” that I need to pee?’ Is it possible your full bladder can cause you to have such dreams? Yes
Curious:
You found a better verb than “mean”, “indicate”.
Let’s use “indicate”.
“Point to” is another option.
Rather than ask for a meaning of a dream which can readily be found in a Dream book, or some other such nonsense, perhaps we should confine ourselves merely to interpreting our own dreams. Not asking what a dream means, but why should we, or someone else, whom we know very well, have a particular dream. Exactitude is not the order of the day here, and as has already been stated a confusion can occur between cause and effect that is, which one of these is located in our waking life. All that is compounded by the fact that Symbolism, Wish fulfilment, Displacement, And Recurrence are all I would hold, factors in dreaming, there are others too, which I cannot recall at the moment. Speaking personally I seem to have little difficulty in explaining to myself why I had a particular dream but this is not to speak of its meaning it is just explanation. I have a recurrent dream which so far as I am concerned finds it origin in a series of similar unfulfilled wishes experienced some considerable time ago. The dream proceeds further into fulfilment than I did in my waking life but it is more in the nature of being better mentally disposed towards my goal I can see a way forward so to speak, than actually attaining the goal.
This morning I dreamed I could hear someone noisily crunching up biscuits in their mouth. I awoke after a while to find my cat on the bed, busily as cats do, stamping up and down with her fore paws making the noise. The cause of the dream here seems obvious, but the question is, why Biscuits? Why not a machine gun or cement mixer? After some reflection it occurred to me that of late I have determined to eat fewer biscuits or cut them out altogether. This though far from certain, seems to be something contributing to production of the dream. To look for a meaning seems to me to be irrelevant. If I observe a glowing splint put into oxygen and it bursts into flame I ask why is that? not what does that mean? I think dreams may be treated along these lines.
Dear Curious. On the subject of inkblots, one of the most hilarious anecdotes I have ever read, comes from a book – possibly the ‘varieties of psychedelic experience’, where they were using inkblots to assess the impact on mental functioning of volunteers who had taken LSD.
They asked one volunteer, mid trip, to take the test.
There was a long pause
‘It looks like …bears’
‘Bears?’
‘Yes, bears!’.
Post experience, they interviewed him on why he had said bears. The answer was something like this.
“Well, at the time, I couldn’t really understand why I should be looking at these things, as it seemed rather irrelevant. But the psychologist seemed to think it was important, so I tried to answer. Now really it didn’t look like anything, but I didn’t think he wanted to hear that, but then I decided that it looked a bit like a squirrel’
‘But you then said “bears”..why was that?’
‘Well at the time I couldn’t remember the name for squirrels, so I said bears instead. It satisfied him so it was OK’.
Such are the perils of assuming far too much from experimental results..
Absolutely, subjective reports given to psychologists are something to be deeply skeptical about, and thus so are the reports (and recommendations) given by psychologists that are based on said self-reports. This seems especially true when we’re talking about sexuality (as well as people not being honest, or being self-deceived we have to take into account the fact that only certain ‘types’ of people might agree to consent to sexual surveys). And this would all seem to give some reason to share Dr Read’s doubts about the ability of science to explain what interests him – the question of why many boys ‘get off’ on girl-girl fantasies or erotica (this being a question we can usefully distinguish from the flawed question of why straight men are fascinated by [the sexual aspects of] lesbianism.
Sexology has other tools than self-reports of course – it can measure physical sexual arousal in response to pornographic images for example. And one of the interesting results obtained by this method confirms the suspicion that that men who self-identify as heterosexual and homophobic are often physically aroused by scenes of gay porn. Thus, unless you can be sexually aroused by scenes of gay sex AND be “disgusted” by scenes of gay sex – which seems implausible to me – men with latent homosexual tendencies are not “disgusted” by scenes of gay sex at all but are, instead, disgusted by the fact they are aroused by it. I just don’t buy Dr Read’s assertions that the straight male (the self-identified heterosexual male) is ‘disgusted’ by scenes of gay sex, and that he is disgusted by them as a defence against his own homosexual tendencies.
In any case, for all that sexology can reveal, probably it cannot presently answer the question that Dr Read raises about why so many boys like girl/girl fantasies or porn. Dr Read seems to think individuals who do like this kind of thing could, using the ‘inheritance’ of the ‘best’ of psychoanalysis (by which I think he just means talking about the subject in a one-to-one ‘trusting’ environment) could come to ‘acknowledge’ (believe) that they like this kind of thing because of “vicarious identification”. In that context subjects might, I suppose, come to ‘acknowledge’ (believe) the ‘exciting and encouraging’ thought that their enjoyment of ‘Girl-on-Girl Action IV’ is somehow an expression of “empathy, attempted inhabitation, even envy” and a ‘hidden massive compliment’ to lesbians. A clever ‘therapist-philosopher’ might, I suppose, be able to lead somebody into believing such a proposition but I still wouldn’t trust the subjective reports of anybody who claimed this was the case.
Curious:
I agree with much of what you say, but it seems to me that a straight male might well feel disgust at scenes of gay sex, as a defense mechanism against his own
excitation which he “does not notice”.
We all have very ingenious psychic mechanisms for hiding from that part of our self which constitutes our idea of who we are those aspects of our self which contradict that construction of self and of not noticing those aspects of our self which discomfort us.
Disgust might well be one of those mechanisms.
Most of us are fairly skillful in lying to ourselves about who we are.
Hi Amos
I don’t believe “disgust” is the right way to characterise the reaction of ‘straight’ men to scenes of gay sex at all. Here I think I am of a similar mind to Don. “Disgust” is an overused word, and it relates to the type of instinctive reaction one might have to a close encounter with somebody else’s vomit or faeces not the ‘straight’ reaction to the sight of two men consensually ‘having it away’ (even if you are indoctrinated into thinking such acts are immoral to do and immoral to enjoy watching). I don’t believe disgust against scenes of gay sex can be inoculated into homosexuals, bisexuals or the much wider body of men who will, at some point, have had gay experiences or fantasies of some sort at some point in their life. Psychiatric aversion ‘therapies’ – where homosexuals were shown gay pornography and injected with drugs that would make them violently ill – did not cause homosexuals to be genuinely disgusted by the thought of gay sex, and the hatefulness of Judeo-Christian teachings about homosexuality that caused these poor souls to seek out such treatment clearly hadn’t been enough to cause disgust at the thought or fantasy of gay sex either – merely self-hatred due to the fact one has inclinations one believes are immoral and shameful. So I’m very dubious about the idea that disgust can act as a defence mechanism against being sexually excited by scenes of gay sex. As for the more subtle idea that ‘disgust’ can act as a defence against noticing one is excited by scenes or the thought of gay sex – as, stated, I don’t believe such ‘disgust’ occurs but you are right about our ability to self-deceive. And perhaps some religiously-deluded male bigots can succeed in hating ‘fags’ so very well that they genuinely manage to suppress the knowledge that deep down what they’d really like is some cock.
Curious:
I’m not sure. I recall one “straight” guy I used to work with who talked endlessly about how “disgusting” gay sex is.
His insistence on the subject caught my attention, and several years later, he declared himself gay.
I don’t know if he genuinely felt disgust or was “faking it”.
However, I would say that the “normal” reaction to repressed lust is anger or moral indignation about the type of lust which is being repressed.
By “repressed”, I mean “kept out of mind” or conveniently “forgotten” or “not noticed”.
Hi Amos,
I still struggle to believe that the typical ‘straight’ man would respond to scenes of gay sex with anything like the nauseous aversion he might have towards faeces, rotting corpses, or slimy insects. Still, perhaps there is something psychologically interesting going on when ‘straight’ males assert that the thought of gay sex causes them ‘disgust’ – it does seem implausible to put all such reports down to the social pressure to report that this is how they feel. I shall ponder on this.
Re Curious June 2nd:
“Still, perhaps there is something psychologically interesting going on when ‘straight’ males assert that the thought of gay sex causes them ‘disgust’ – it does seem”
An affected overreaction does seem to be quite common these days as a means of expressing one’s disapproval, or very often mock disapproval, as a defence mechanism, in case one becomes implicated in some infringement of ridiculous political correctness. Very often the so called disapprover claims that he was, on beholding, or most often hearing, such and such made physically sick that is, he/she either vomited or wanted to vomit. Two instances of many, come to mind here, which I will not enlarge upon, other than they were mentioned on the national press. One concerned mocking a person of different race, the other mocking an afflicted person. Taking up the cudgel on behalf of the victims, both of whom are no doubt capable of answering for themselves. As I have indicated the reason for this pseudo reaction is to make an attempt to distance oneself as far as possible from the offending incident. No sympathy whatsoever must be demonstrated and thus vomiting is put forward as their reaction. Of course it is not always vomiting. This defence mechanism is demonstrated in other ways one of which is I think the overreaction of some suppressed homosexuals concerning the physical aspects of homosexual relations.
Re S Wallerstein 1st June
“I don’t know if he genuinely felt disgust or was “faking it”.
I could not have resisted asking him about his apparent change of attitude. I assume you had lost contact with him by then.
Don:
It’s a good question, but no, I never felt sufficiently “in confidence” with him to ask him personal questions.
If I may suggest an additional reason many hetero men prefer to view lesbian porn, or perhaps just a simplifying restatement: there are no male genitalia visible in the scene.
*I today emailed Rupert Read as follows, and have decided I would post it publicly ‘as is’.*
Dear Dr Read,
I recently corresponded with you on your ‘Bindel’ piece at the TPM site under the moniker ‘Curious.’ I wish to offer my apologies for some of the comments I made there – I descended to a level of vitriol and unpleasantness that was quite unnecessary. I retract accusations of ‘arrogance’ and regret the tone that my unwarranted loss of temper caused me to adopt. I am sorry for any offence caused and for my part in ‘derailing’ the constructive conversation that you had hoped to spark with a blog posting whose intentions were, I think, thoroughly (and sadly) misunderstood. I’ll add some form of comment about this at the end of the thread but I felt I should offer some apology for my behaviour to you directly.
I have noted your work and commitment with respect to ‘environmental’ matters and would like to take the opportunity to sincerely doff my cap to you in that respect.
best wishes and, again, apologies,
yours sincerely
James
* In so far as some of my more stupid remarks will have lowered the tone generally and derailed useful discussion I extend my apologies to TPM readers generally and Jeremy who has worked to establish a forum that fosters polite and useful discourse. As with my note to Dr Read, I offer the same unprompted by anything but my own conscience. *
James – Classy, as always. And maybe the “arrogance” thing was a step too far. But actually your loss of temper appears to have been rather mild compared to an awful lot of the stuff that passes for commentary in the blogosphere.
The ability to recognize errors, even small ones as in this case, is a great virtue, one that not everyone is blessed with.
Actually, Curious is perhaps the fairest person I’ve run into online.
There’s an interesting video in which Dawkins talks to Peter Singer: Dawkins starts off the conversation by calling Singer the “most ethical person I know”.
Curious is the most ethical person I know online.
(Actually, after seeing the video, I have a much better impression of Dawkins, whom I dislike on a gut level; and my impression of Singer, already very favorable, is even more favorable.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU
Actually, Dawkins calls Singer
“moral”, not “ethical”.
The video is interesting, not so much because of the content, but because of their interaction.
Jeremy & Amos,
Shame is at least a quasi-virtue I suppose – still it is better if you do not give yourself cause to feel it often. Though you vastly overestimate my actual virtue Amos, I do appreciate the kind and sincere words. And though I appreciate the spirit in which you speak Jeremy, being ‘mild’ compared to what is going on ‘out there’ amongst ‘the champions of reason’ isn’t nearly enough to aim for. It would also be somewhat better if I were known for writing philosophically insightful pieces rather than classy apologies. I should try to write something useful sometime…
In any case, thank you both for what you’ve said – and to Rupert for his gracious private reply.
I shall now away and cut holes in one of my potato sacks..
James – My offer stands to make you a blogger here. If you want an outlet for “philosophically useful” stuff, just say.
Curious:
I’d love to be able to read your posts.
Then again, there are those who reflect better upon something that others write or say, rather than
affirming a thesis themselves.
For example, Socrates.
Yes James go for it. You will be great. I have always been impressed by your researching ability in addition to your Knowledge and clarity of expression so often missing in Philosophical writing.
I have detected a slight irritation with others in what you say at times but it does not go beyond the bounds of acceptability. It seems to bother you. Have you ever asked yourself why?
I think that Rupert Read’s explanatory hypothesis is better than the one proposed by Julie Bindel. I agree with him, and other posters, in thinking that an interesting and even plausible hypothesis is not yet a confirmed one. One way of confirming it invites reflection-cum-confession of heterosexual males: does RR’s explanation ring true, is there an A-ha! effect? – But even if so confirmed, the hypothesis would remain weakly supported. We often thin that we have the right explanation for our desires & fantasies when in fact we are deceiving ourselves, or conforming to the dominant explanatory framework.
I have a question that may complicate matters in an interesting way. If sexual fantasies employ visualization and identification, why don’t most heterosexual women get turned on by images of male homosexual sex?
Damn! This looks good and I missed the whole thing!
Anyway, I’ll take a stab at answering that very last question from Anna:
Pretty much the same reason “most” don’t get turned on by lesbian sex, it’s not the physicality they desire but the emotion.
It’s why we like “chick” flicks – the emotional ties, the trials and tribulations between people are more interesting than what they actually do in bed (or wherever).
Men want sex because they are genetically preprogrammed to inseminate as much as possible. Now I hate to disparage any feminists here (I am, by genetic disposition, one myself – like being gay its not something you choose!) but evolution has put us in the more caring nurturing role. We’ll shake it off eventually, there really is no evolutionary necessity for it to be that way any more, but right now we are stuck with it for a small (geological) time span.
Love.
Emily.
I’ve come in rather late. But for what it’s worth, here’s my take on Anna’s question. I think that men (by and large) want to be the doer and women (by and large) want to be the ‘done unto’. So men watch lesbian porn in a more voyeuristic fashion, while women watch the same with a sense of identification with the women. So it would seem that both men and women enjoy watching women, but for different reasons. Only homosexuals would be interested in the male-on-male stuff.
As for Curious posting on this site, I’d like to add that I’m a fan too, after having read his very incisive comments and would certainly look forward to his posts.
Lata,
That’s very kind of you to say, I appreciate it. I’ll give the matter some thought.
thanks
James
@LATA TAURO
>women (by and large) want to be the ‘done unto’
Wow!
Let me debunk the “women as victims” rhetoric once again.
“By and large” lesbian relationships are based on equivalency. Despite the common misconception from media fed and male porn panderers, there are seldom “wife” and “husband” roles in such relationships. I’m sure there are many where someone is better at doing the taxes, or the laundry, or building a shed, but that’s just division of labour rather than assigning “roles”.
In lesbian relationships sex is seldom a tool of manipulation, a treat or an obligation – it is a part of a natural expression of love of one person for another.
I’m sure male gay sex is equally misrepresented by the bar hoping, bathhouse frequenting mass depiction, and the stereotypical roles of giver and receiver.
Its pretty interesting that domestic violence amongst gays and lesbians is the same as it is for straight couples. Seems like the pressures of life are equally applied, despite the inequality in law and perception.
Emily
You’ve misread me. Let me be clearer. What I meant was that women have traditionally been the chased rather than the chasers. No doubt there are exceptions and we might evolve to be very different in the future, but as things stand now we enjoy the attention we receive from men and this can translate to a certain ‘posture’ sexually. It means that we enjoy the sense of being admired more than we like doing the admiring. And possibly men might have the opposite sense. I was not making a comment on lesbian relationships here, at all, by the way. There is a lot in us that we respond to sexually that may have nothing to do with how we think intellectually, and which comes from a subconscious place. We would therefore have no control over how we respond in this sense.
We do accept that there are certain traits that are considered to be more feminine and some that are considered to be more masculine and a wide variety that are simply human. And on a scale going from very feminine to very masculine men and women will find themselves somewhere along that continuum, with variations of some women being more masculine and some men being more feminine. But by and large one would possibly find clustering around some points on either side.
I still don’t know if I have expressed the idea that I have, in a way that makes sense to you, the way I mean it.
bharwon chup hojao ab chinal ke bachoon maa chudani ke
I ran across this thread tonight after viewing some light sapphic pornography scenes on youtube. I wondered what theories might account for the general love of “lesbian sex” among heterosexual males.
I think one thing not strongly addressed in the comments or by Dr. Read is the purely visual erotic appreciation a heterosexual male is trained to have for the female form (and in our time a specific “type” of female form more than ever). Obviously it is generally accepted that men make initial mating choices more often than not visually, but as humans in general we are trained in life to have appreciation for certain aesthetics over others. It would seem plausible that the same pleasure centers stimulated in the brain when looking at a Renoir light up more intensely when looking at material we have connected with sexual pleasure.
But this would only account for visual depictions of “Lesbian sex” (quotations to denote fantasy depictions). As straight man who has long preferred depictions of “Lesbian sex” to male on female sex from presexual experience to post (although post I have come to appreciate more conventional male female depictions) I have often reflected that there may be some of this identification with the women in these depictions that Dr. Read talks about. I developed my preference for and appreciation of visual depictions of “Lesbian sex” prior to encountering any others. I would say that in literature depictions of lesbian sex that I have encountered can be as equally stimulating as depictions of straight sex.
I don’t think that there are a lot of reasons. First, female homosexuality is perceived in a better way than male homosexuality, because of the way we perceive the act of sex itself. The passive partner is degraded. I don’t say that when a have sex I feel that way, or that we perceive things like these all the time, but this is what we generally think. This is why a woman with many men=whore, men with many women=cool.
This happens with a lot of things, because masculine “features” are good and universal, feminine- not so good. Boys can’t wear pink, girls can wear blue. Boys can’t play with dolls, girls can play with cars. Men= human, women=subcategory. This is why women can do men’s stuff and still be perceived as women, but men can’t- they will be humiliated. This is why lesbians are more tolerated.
Second, women are sexually objectified. A beautiful woman=sex. So, men think that a woman would want them, a long as they want her, this is why, beautiful woman=straight(very delusional) woman playing with women. And when men see a woman, sex is what they think about.
Third, as Read says, men do imagine they are one of the women. Sorry, this is so obvious. Why do the women in those scenes put a dildo and do it like a man? I’m sure that every man imagines that this penis was his, but not only. It could be only this, if the women didn’t put dildos on themselves and so on, but this sex is made that way, just to be closer to hetero sex, so that men can imagine themselves in the scenes. I also don’t believe that it is a threesome fantasy. People are aroused at most by the visual representation of the sex they like, not by something that can only lead to it. Also as far as I know lesbian scenes when there are no men, are different to those when men are included.(I don’t watch it, and i only know about these thing from forums I wish I had not read, so i’m not sure if these movies are that way).
Even if men were disgust by other men(which is schizophrenic), that doesn’t change the above, but this is still not true.
Most of the men, who like lesbian action, like normal sex, and those, who can’t even look at another man, are suspicious.
It’s also not that men like to look at women, as the last, who comment, said, because of what Read already said.
Last, I don’t think that lesbianism is really accepted, even in terms of the sex act itself. There is an amount of humiliation attached to homosexual activities, and although lesbianism is more accepted, it is still perceived as something naughty and maybe not so natural, that maybe have an effect on it’s popularity.
as a straight man, i just can’t understand why so many other men are so into lesbians as much as i hate them. it is bad enough with so many gay women that are out there now that are making it much harder for us men that are looking to meet a normal decent woman today, and i do seem to come across so many low life women that have an attitude problem with us. i was married at one time and my wife left me for another woman, and it looks as though many women today are more into their own sex instead of being with a man. i was a very good, loving and caring husband when i was married to her. i never mistreated her at all, and the sex we had was great. the way that women have changed today, i guess they feel much more comfortable being with other women. even the straight women that i meet are so very nasty to start a conversation with, and walk away from me. i can’t blame myself, since i did not do anything wrong. i see this happening to other men as well, so i am not alone. i just to find a good woman to accept me for who i am.
as a straight man, i just can’t understand why so many other men are so into lesbians as much as i hate them. it is bad enough with so many gay women that are out there now that are making it much harder for us men that are looking to meet a normal decent woman today, and i do seem to come across so many low life women that have an attitude problem with us. i was married at one time and my wife left me for another woman, and it looks as though many women today are more into their own sex instead of being with a man. i was a very good, loving and caring husband when i was married to her. i never mistreated her at all, and the sex we had was great. the way that women have changed today, i guess they feel much more comfortable being with other women. even the straight women that i meet are so very nasty to start a conversation with, and walk away from me. i can’t blame myself, since i did not do anything wrong. i see this happening to other men as well, so i am not alone. i just want to find a good woman to accept me for who i am, and that would be great.
I’m a straight guy who lives and works with two lesbians, I fell in love with one but not because she was a lesbian but because of her way of being, also I don’t like to watch lesbian porn , and I don’t have fantasies about lesbians, I love the female form yes , but I have fantasies about me with them, isn’t that how we all came to be here in the first place?
as a straight man, i can’t understand why are so many women leaving their husbands and boyfriends for another woman. my wife left me for another woman too, and it seems that this has become very common now. i was also a very good, loving and caring husband that was very committed to her before this happened to me. and now that i am in my late fifties, meeting another good straight woman is very hard for me. even the women that seem to be straight, i will try to start a conversation with the one that i would like very much too meet. they are very nasty to me, and even threaten to call the police on me. that just shows me how many low life loser women that seem to be everywhere now, and they are sure making it very difficult for me to meet a good woman today. the straight women and men that were very extremely fortunate to have met one another and have a family today, should really go to church to pray and thank GOD very much for having a life that i would have certainly wanted as well. it is us innocent men that are hurting very much now, and can’t really find the right woman to connect with. i am a good looking down to earth straight man that keeps in shape, and i would just want to have my life back. i am sure you can’t blame me for wanting to have what is normal today. the way i look at it, GOD certainly created just too many very nasty women today, and it seems that all the very good ones have been taken. even the straight women today need a different man for each day of week, to keep their sorry ass happy. and GOD forbid, if they can only stay with just one man instead. then again, they are the ones that are very trashy to begin with. either way, us good men really lose.
as a straight man, i certainly do agree that much more women nowadays are going for their own sex. how very sad. now i have to compete with other women to find a good woman for me, go figure.
To what extent is “heterosexual male” interest in lesbians
really heterosexual or male? Possibly, could it not be a
sign of a certain degree of transhomosexuality? (i.e. a
person with an ultimate preference to be a female-attracted
female, yet presently in a male body?) My own belief is, that
while there is a certain number of people who feel so strongly
that they are in the wrong gender, that they will do something
very public about it, there is a much greater number of invisible
people who maybe do not feel quite so strongly (which is not
the same as not at all), or who choose to deal with it in
different ways (e.g. various forms of sublimation.)
Then there is the phenomenon, where heterosexual men will
take lesbian situations and then fantasise about a male
inserting themselves into it – such goes the plots of much porn.
Yet, is it not possible, that this is an assertion of
the fear of castration? The “heterosexual” “male” desire for the
lesbian is a desire for castration, while the insertion of the
male into that scenario is a way of acknowledging that desire
while simultaneously undermining it, a way however temporarily
of resolving the conflict between desire and fear. The threat
of castration which such desire poses is recuperated.
Maybe, for some people, heterosexuality is a form of lying to
one’s self and to others, and the allure of the lesbian is the
allure of someone who lives free from such self-deception? The
allure of personal freedom, which if in this life one feels is
denied to one’s self, one might nonetheless experience vicariously
through others?