An Examen of “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’” Part Six.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: But in almost 500 pages, the word “heterosexual” is used only 24 times
{31}, and isn’t even indexed.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{31}Editorial Note: It becomes evident that the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay is referring to the authorised English translation, published some three years later, of the seventh, enlarged and revised, edition of “Psychopathia Sexualis” by neurologist Prof. Charles Gilbert Chaddock (1861-1936). It can be accessed online at the following URL. Viz.:
▪ English text (1892):
As a search for “hetero” in the 432 pages of this November 1892 English translation shows it is used 25 times all told—appearing as “heterosexual” in one instance, as “hetero-sexuality” in another, and in its hyphenated form “hetero-sexual” on twenty-three occasions—it becomes evident the aspirant arguer has no direct knowledge of how this neoteric medico-legal signifier is actually “used” by either Dr. Krafft-Ebing (in any of his twelve German editions) or by Prof. Chaddock (in his English translation of the seventh edition) and is just regurgitating some ‘queer-centric’ talking-points they read or heard elsewhere (and is not referring to the printed or scanned text on the pages of the actual book itself).
Incidentally, a search for “homo” in the text itself (i.e., exclusive of the index and chapter titles) shows it is used on 78 occasions; 76 of which are hyphenated. In the original German publication, of this 7th edition, neither of the terms are hyphenated and the German phrase rendered into English by Prof. Chaddock as “the hetero-sexual instinct” (“
die heterosexuale Empfindung”) more properly translates as “the heterosexual feeling”. It can be accessed online at the following URL. Viz.:▪ German text (1892):
To proceed: as the medico-legal study “Psychopathia Sexualis” (i.e., ‘Psychopathy
of Sex’)
is—as its very title clearly establishes before even opening it—a medico-legal study of psychopathic sexuality (a.k.a. morbid sexuality) there is no
significance to be attached to the term being used “only 24 times” as there is nothing morbid about
fecund other-sex sexuality (i.e., nothing psychopathic about the “normal sexual instinct” or “natural sexual instinct”). And especially so as it is
typically utilised therein as a benchmark against which words such as ‘abnormal’ and ‘unnatural’ can be duly referenced (as well as ‘degenerate’,
‘perverted’, and so forth, as was typical of the time).
However, what is significant—although its import has passed the aspirant arguer by, of course, due to uncritically absorbing ‘queer-centric’ disinformation[
*]—is that very non-indexing of the neoteric medico-legal signifier “hetero-sexual” in that influential volume.[*]“One hundred years ago, people had *a very different idea* of what it means to be heterosexual. Understanding *that shift in thinking* can tell us a lot about fluid sexual identities today, argues Brandon Ambrosino”.
[emphases added].
The reason why the newly-coined signifier for fecund other-sex sexuality (a.k.a. the “normal sexual instinct” or “natural sexual instinct”) “isn’t even indexed” is because the “Psychopathia Sexualis” medico-legal study is indeed a “catalogue of sexual disorders” and fecund other-sex sexuality was not, is not, and never will be, classified as a sexual disorder.
(To even entertain any such notion for a moment is just too silly for words).
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: That’s because Krafft-Ebing is more interested in “contrary sexual instinct”
{32} (“perversions”) than “sexual instinct”, the latter being for him the “normal” sexual desire of humans.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{32}Editorial Note: First of all, and for what it is worth, a computer-search with the search-string
“contrary sex” returned 129 hits whereas “normal sex” returned 48 hits (and “abnormal sex”: 21; “natural sex”: 9; “unnatural sex”: 6; “perverse sex”; 52).Second, the adjective ‘contrary’, in the term “contrary sexual instinct” above, is primarily a matter-of-fact word (i.e., non-judgemental) meaning diametrically opposite. Viz.:
• contrary (adj.): 1. diametrically opposed: antipodal, antipodean, antithetical, antonymic, antonymous, contradictory, converse, counter, diametric, diametrical, opposing, opposite, polar, reverse; 2. given to acting in opposition to others: balky, contrarious, difficult, froward {=stubbornly contrary and disobedient; obstinate}, impossible, ornery, perverse, wayward. [curly-bracketed insert added]. ~ ( American Heritage Roget’s Thesaurus).
The noun ‘perversion’ essentially has two connotations which, and mayhap inevitably, readily become indistinguishable: the adjectival “perverse” and the verbal “pervert”—(both of which stem from the Latin pervertere, ‘to turn the wrong way’; from per-, ‘by’ + vertere, ‘to turn’)—with the former essentially connoting “to turn away (from moral or civil law); misconduct” and, in this context, the latter essentially connoting “to turn away (from normal sexual practice); abnormal”.
Dr. Krafft-Ebing draws a distinction between perversion (as a disease) and perversity (as a vice). Viz.:
• “Perversion of the sexual instinct, as will be seen from what follows, is not to be confounded with perversity in the sexual act; since the latter may be induced by conditions which are not psychopathology. The concrete perverse act, monstrous as it may be, is not decisive. In order to differentiate between disease (perversion) and vice (perversity), one must investigate the whole personality of the individual and the original impulse leading to the perverse act. Therein will be found the key of diagnosis...”. ~ (pp. 56-57).
• “The determining condition here is the demonstration of perverse feeling for the same sex; not the proof of sexual acts with the same sex. These two phenomena must not be confounded with each other; perversity must not be taken for perversion. Perverse sexual acts, not dependent upon perversion, often come under observation...”. ~ (page 188).
• “The nature of the act can never, in itself, determine a decision as to whether it lies within the limits of mental pathology, or within the bounds of mental physiology. The perverse act does not indicate perversion of instinct. (...). The perversion of feeling must be shown to be pathological. This proof is to be obtained by learning the conditions attending its development, and by proving the existence of a general neuropathic or psychopathic condition”. ~ (pp. 379–380).
• “The fact that there is no doubt about the pathological basis of many cases of contrary sexual instinct shows that pederasty may also be the act of an irresponsible person, and makes it necessary, in court, to examine not merely the deed, but also the mental condition of the perpetrator. The principles laid down previously must also be adhered to here. Not the deed, but only an anthropological and clinical judgment of the perpetrator can permit a decision as to whether we have to do with a perversity deserving punishment, or with an abnormal perversion of the mental and sexual life, which, under certain circumstances, excludes punishment. The next legal question to settle is whether the contrary sexual feeling is congenital or acquired; and, in the latter case, whether it is abnormal perversion or moral perversity”.
~ (pp. 408-409).• perversity (n.): 1. deliberate and stubborn unruliness and resistance to guidance or discipline; contrariness; 2. deliberately deviating from what is good; [e.g.]: “there will always be a few people who, through macho perversity, gain satisfaction from bullying and terrorism”; perverseness. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0)..
• perversion (n.): 1. a curve that reverses the direction of something; [e.g.]: “the tendrils of the plant exhibited perversion”; “perversion also shows up in kinky telephone cords”; 2. an aberrant sexual practice; sexual perversion; paraphilia (abnormal sexual activity); 3. the action of perverting something (turning it to a wrong use); [e.g.]: “it was a perversion of justice”; actus reus {Latin; lit. ‘guilty act’}, wrongful conduct, misconduct, wrongdoing (activity that transgresses moral or civil law); [e.g.]: “he denied any wrongdoing”. [curly-bracketed insert added]. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0).
Basically, the word’s primary connotation became perverted (pun intended), in popular usage, from its matter-of-fact (i.e., non-judgemental) meaning due to there being a preponderance of peoples for whom any deviation from the norm was perverse (nuance not being a prominent feature in their stock-in-trade).
Third, as the “Psychopathia Sexualis” (i.e., ‘Psychopathy of Sex’) is primarily a medico-legal study of what was then classified as psychopathic sexuality (a.k.a. morbid sexuality) it is not at all remarkable that Dr. Krafft-Ebing would be “more interested” in what the book’s title clearly refers to—and which “contrary sexual instinct” readily denotes—than the “normal sexual instinct” which infecund same-sex sexuality is contrary to.
What is worth remarking on is the aspirant arguer’s usage of “sexual instinct” in lieu of “normal sexual instinct” (which features in the medico-legal study on 48 occasions) and thus requiring an otherwise unnecessary tacked-on remark “...the latter being for him the “normal” sexual desire of humans” to clarify. Viz.:
• [quote]: “Austro-German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing included the word in “Psychopathia Sexualis”, a catalogue of sexual disorders. But in almost 500 pages, the word “heterosexual” is used only 24 times, and isn’t even indexed. That’s because Krafft-Ebing is more interested in “contrary sexual instinct“ (“perversions”) than “sexual instinct”, the latter being for him the “normal” sexual desire of humans”. [endquote].
• [example only]: “Austro-German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing included the word in “Psychopathia Sexualis”, a catalogue of sexual disorders. But in its 432 pages, the word “heterosexual” is used only 23 times, and isn’t even indexed. That’s because Krafft-Ebing is more interested in “contrary sexual instinct” (“perversions”) than “normal sexual instinct”. [end example].
What is remarkable about it is the none-too-subtle implication that both infecund same-sex sexuality and fecund other-sex sexuality are equally classifiable as a “sexual instinct” (i.e., as a heritable sexuality)—along with the implicit ramification that the normalcy of fecund other-sex sexuality is thereby reduced to a mere “being for him” category vis-ŕ-vis the “sexual desire” of humans (i.e., reduced to being a subset of procreative human sexuality)—whereby the term “contrary sexual instinct” is stripped of its explanatory power (despite the vast majority of humankind being of the fecund other-sex sexuality, since time immemorial, and hence the complemental “normal sexual instinct” for around 99% of the population at large).
Essentially, the aspirant arguer wants 100% of the population to all agree that both infecund same-sex sexuality and fecund other-sex sexuality are now ‘the norm’. Viz.:
• the norm (n.): the usual thing, the average, par for the course, the rule; [e.g.]: “Families of six or seven were the norm in those days”. ~ (Collins English Thesaurus).
• norm (n.; pl. norms): 1. that which is normal or typical; [e.g.]: “Unemployment is the norm in this part of the country”; 2. a rule imposed by regulations and/or socially enforced by members of a community; [e.g.]: “Not eating your children is just one of those societal norms everyone lives by”. [etymology: from French norme, from Old French, from Latin norma, ‘a carpenter’s square’, ‘a rule’, ‘a pattern’, ‘a precept’]. ~ (Wiktionary English Dictionary).
Or, in other words, the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay wants 100% of the population to all agree that a ‘new normal’ should prevail. Viz.:
• new normal (n.; pl. new normals): a current prevailing situation which has emerged recently, that differs dramatically from the previous one and is expected to remain; [e.g.]: “The new normal for this country is simply to survive economically”; “That is to say, the abnormal situation may persist until it becomes a new normal”. (page 659, “The Quarterly Journal of Economics”, Vol. 36, № 4, “Change of Price”, by Benjamin H. Hibbard; Aug 1922, OUP, London).
~ (Wiktionary English Dictionary).
And thus does the regularisation and normalisation of a ‘truthiness’ version of infecund same-sex sexuality proceed apace. Viz.:
• regularisation (n.): 1. the condition of having been made regular (or more regular); 2. the act of bringing to uniformity; making regular [viz.: conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal]. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0).
• normalise (v. tr.): to cause (something previously regarded as anomalous) to be accepted as normal, thereby altering the accepted norm; (n.): *normalisation*, normaliser. [emphasis added]. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).
• truthiness (n.; informal): (of a belief, etc.) the quality of being considered to be true because of what the believer wishes or feels, regardless of the facts. ~ (Collins English Dictionary).
And last, but not at all least, the aspirant arguer’s tacked-on remark—(vide: “...the latter being for him the “normal” sexual desire of humans” above)—serving also as a set-up for their next tactic, further below, and following on from what was otherwise a pointless comment, anyway, is more suggestive of a mind interested in naming-and-blaming than it is in comprehension-and-contemplation.
The marked lack of appreciation for the very fecundity which is the raison d’ętre of other-sex sexuality is quite apparent
here inasmuch without that complemental “normal sexual instinct” being in situ for the vast majority of humankind—a
majoritarian normalcy self-evident all throughout the sexually-bipartite animal kingdom—the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay would not
even be here (let alone able to be critical of that which brought them into being, in a flesh and blood body, in the first place) on this otherwise
paradisaical verdant and azure terraqueous globe which begat the human race and whereat humankind flourishes.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: “Normal” is a loaded word, of course, and it has been misused throughout history. Hierarchical ordering leading to slavery
{33} was at one time accepted as normal, as was a geocentric cosmology.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{33}Editorial Note: As the word “normal” (in the generic “normal sexual
instinct” and/or “natural sexual instinct” usage) is not, of course, “a loaded word” in that
context—and neither is it “misused” by its inclusion therein—then this tactic is nothing but a clumsy attempt to slur by association.
Indeed, it is one thing to say that it is “a loaded word” insofar its usage has changed as societal values progressed, over the course of centuries, yet it is another thing entirely to taint the generic “normal sexual instinct” (a classificatory term serving as a benchmark for what terms such as “contrary sexual instinct”, “abnormal sexual instinct”, et alia, refer to) via unnecessarily associating it with “hierarchical ordering leading to slavery” in the guise of offering same as an example of such a change in cultural mores.
And the reason it is an unnecessary association is because what the generic “normal sexual instinct” phrase refers to—the
instinctive means whereby humankind is both present and has futurity—has no such “hierarchical
ordering” vis-ŕ-vis what terms like “contrary sexual instinct”, “degenerate sexual instinct”, et alia, reference as those classifications
stem not from societal mores, but, rather, on departures from that normal kind.
Furthermore, slavery was not an “hierarchical ordering” either—and neither was the nescience regarding “geocentric cosmology” for that matter—as slaves were totally excluded from the social order (be it class or caste), of which serfs or peasants were the lowliest, as that practice originated as a strategic (and profitable) alternative to massacring captives defeated in battle insofar as an enemy is less likely to ‘fight to the death’ if they know in advance that surrender will result in slavery rather than slaughter.
Besides which, as the word “normal” (in the generic phrase “normal sexual instinct”) is interchangeable with the word ‘natural’ (as in the generic phrase “natural sexual instinct”), anyway, its usage reflected the way things intrinsically are, organically, independent of any socio-cultural modification, just as to refer to “abnormal weather”, for example, is to refer to a departure from the way things intrinsically are geographically—as in whatever weather patterns are typical or characteristic to a particular place and season—and, as such, is interchangeable with the term “unseasonable weather”.
Put succinctly: the generic phrase “normal sexual instinct” (just like “natural sexual instinct”) is not, and cannot ever be, a value judgement.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: It was only by questioning the foundations of the consensus view that “normal” phenomena were dethroned from their privileged positions
{34}.{cont’d after next ...}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{34}Editorial Note: Just as the generic phrase “normal sexual instinct” (just like “natural sexual instinct”) is not a value judgement—being instead reflective of the way things intrinsically are organically—its usage is not a matter of consensus of opinion, and thus liable to change, either.
To be specific: it is not due to any “consensus view” that fecund other-sex
sexuality is the instinctive means for humankind being present, and having futurity, simply because it is a biological fact—it is just the way
things intrinsically are in nature—in the same way as it is a biological fact that, definitionally, infecund same-sex sexuality is an evolutionary dead-end.
And no amount of argufying can alter facts one iota.
The reason why the courtship, coupling/mating, and bonding of males and females everywhere—impelled by the instinctive
attraction to, and of, the other sex—has been, and is, both natural and valued (i.e., both “normal” and
“privileged”), is because, for all bipartitely-sexual animals,
procreation takes place when the haploid male gamete (spermatozoa) successfully fuses with the haploid female gamete (ovum), thereby restoring
two full sets of chromosomes in a new organism⁽*⁾, via that specific act of other-sex sexual fecundation (a.k.a. insemination, impregnation, fertilisation).
⁽*⁾ haploid & diploid cells: “...most cells have two full sets of chromosomes and are technically called diploid cells; when such a cell divides, it must first duplicate its chromosomes so as to produce two daughter cells that are also diploid; this type of cell division is called mitosis, and all somatic cells—that is, cells used for the maintenance, functioning, and growth of an organism—reproduce in this way; by contrast, reproductive cells, or gametes, are created by another kind of cell division, called meiosis; meiosis also starts out by duplicating the chromosomes, but there are two divisions instead of one, with the result that four daughter cells are produced rather than two; since the number of chromosomes is halved with each division, each daughter cell has just a single set of chromosomes and is called a haploid cell; *during reproduction, the union of a female gamete with a male gamete restores the two full sets of chromosomes in a new organism*...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (based on the American Heritage Student Science Dictionary).
(Incidentally, both artificial insemination and invitro fertilisation mimic that instinctive other-sex sexual process).
And the reason why its complemental nuptials (i.e., marriage or spousal equivalent) have also been both natural and valued
(a.k.a. “normal” and “privileged” further above)
is because, with humans being bipartitely-sexual, the ongoing complementary presence of both mother and father—both man and woman as husband and wife—is the organic complementarity vis-ŕ-vis the entire instinctive
courting-&-mating-&-bonding + nesting-&-gestating-&-birthing + nurturing-&-nourishing-&-protecting reproductive process.
Moreover, were the fecundative other-sex sexual proclivity—the ongoing instinctive experience of being of the fecundous
other-sex sexual predisposition as a consistent state or condition—ever cease to exist then so too would the human race (with the last of the
then-elderly citizens⁽*⁾ having no succeeding generation to look out for them in their old age as they did, in turn, for their progenitor
and progenitrix just as those procreators did, in turn, for their progenitors and progenitrices, and so on and so forth, back unto the ancestral mists of prehistory, wherein some culturally-specific primogenitor and primogenitrix purportedly originated the entire human race).
⁽*⁾This includes, of course, the last of the then-elderly persons of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion who—having somehow phantasmically[§] succeeded in their ‘barking mad’ plan to have that “way of life” known as fecund other-sex sexuality “die out”[†] all around the globe (and, also phantasmically, “long before” the human species is no more!?)—would no longer have other citizens’ children providing for them in their old age as is currently the case.
[§]phantasm (n.): the mental imagery produced by fantasy; (adj.): phantasmal, phantasmical; (adv.): *phantasmically*. [Greek phantasma, ‘an appearance’]. [emphasis added]. ~ (Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary).
[†][Mr. Ambrosino]: “Men and women will continue to have different-genital sex {i.e., coitus, coition, copulation} with each other until the human species is no more. But heterosexuality—as a social marker, *as a way of life*, as an identity—may well *die out* long before then”. [emphases added; curly-bracketed translation inserted].
Also, had lunacy prevailed in extremis and infecund same-sex sexuality had ever become ‘the norm’—as in, constituting something like 99% of the population[§] as has more or less been the case for fecund other-sex sexuality stretching back as normalcy into prehistoric times—and unreasoningly valued (i.e., “privileged” as above) via some cockeyed irrationality, the human race would have died out way back when.
[§]In his 1902 “Contrary Sexual Instincts
” essay Dr. Allen Ross Defendorf recorded an average 0.33% of several varied populations were persons of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion in the late 1800s. Viz.:
• [Dr. Defendorf]: “This morbid condition is not frequently encountered, although the patients themselves assert that it is by no means uncommon. Ulrichs in his own morbid experience claims to have encountered two hundred cases, while one of Krafft-Ebing’s patients states that he knew of one hundred and twenty individuals in a town of thirty thousand population {i.e., 0.40%}, and eighteen and eight in towns respectively of seven thousand {i.e., 0.25%} and two thousand three hundred {i.e., 0.34%}. It is more prevalent among theatrical people...”. [curly-bracketed insert added].
In 2013, the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA published a 1.6% estimate for persons of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion.
Hence the normative valuing of fecund other-sex sexuality over infecund same-sex sexuality
(NB.: with something like 99% of the population being
moronically labelled “privileged”, by those clamorous and vociferous (self-appointed) representatives of that tiny minority of the population,
it is an absurd application of a word which typically applies to a small and usually powerful group or class).
In summary: what the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay has been “questioning the foundations” of has its apparitional origins in the (historically beleaguered) ‘queer-centric’ social constructionist Weltanschauung.
Thus what the aspirant arguer wants “dethroned”, and the
“privileged position” it occupies done away with, is really nothing other than a projected
‘queer-centric’ social constructionist apparition anyway which—!abracadabra!—subsists spectrally in a (historically beleaguered) ‘queer-centric’
social constructionist worldview and is most likely to be located, wraithlike, right where their latest dial-a-definition identity is situate (as to
increate the one is to automorphically spawn t’other).
Therefore, re-educational screeds such as this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay—which are nothing other than a ‘queer-centric’ social constructionist ploy to somehow or another have what the generic phrases “normal sexual instinct” and “natural sexual instinct” refer to expunged from their Weltanschauung tout-de-suite—are actually an exercise in futility.
tl;dr: their (self-inflicted) ‘problem’ begins and ends at home.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: For Krafft-Ebing, normal sexual desire was situated within a larger context of procreative utility{35}, an idea that was in keeping with the dominant sexual theories of the West.
{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{35}Editorial Note: Au contraire ... starting from the very first paragraph on page one, Dr. Krafft-Ebing makes it abundantly clear that both “normal sexual desire” and “procreative utility” are situated within—and indeed underpin—the larger context of the higher, nobler feelings in “a world of beauty, sublimity, and morality” whereupon, having overcome that natural sexual instinct, inspiration and material can be drawn from “an inexhaustible spring” for higher enjoyment, for more earnest work, and for the attainment of the ideal.
Further to this point: Dr. Krafft-Ebing goes on to say that Dr. Henry Maudsley (1835-1918) rightly calls “the sexual feeling the foundation for the development of the social feeling” inasmuch sexuality, being the most powerful factor in both individual and social existence, is the strongest incentive to the acquisition of property, to the foundation of a home, and to the awakening of altruistic feelings—first for a person of the opposite sex, then for the offspring, and, in a wider sense, for all humanity—and, thus, “all ethics and, perhaps, a good part of aesthetics and religion depend upon the existence of sexual feeling” and, moreover, the sexual life leads to “the highest virtues”, even to the “sacrifice of the ego”.
As learned support for the above Dr. Krafft-Ebing quotes Dr. Maudsley: “Were man to be robbed of the instinct of procreation and all that arises from it mentally, nearly all poetry and, perhaps, the entire moral sense as well, would be torn from his life” (from “The Physiology of Mind”; 1873).
As all of the above is on the first one-and-a-half pages of “Psychopathia Sexualis” it is quite telling how the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay completely passes it by. Viz.:
• [Dr. Krafft-Ebing]: “The propagation of the human species is not committed to accident or to the caprice of the individual, but made secure in *a natural instinct*, which, with all-conquering force and might, demands fulfilment. In the gratification of *this natural impulse* are found not only sensual pleasure and sources of physical well-being, but also higher feelings of satisfaction in perpetuating the single, perishable existence, by the transmission of mental and physical attributes to a new being. In coarse, sensual love, in the lustful impulse to satisfy this natural instinct, man stands on a level with the animal; but it is given to him to raise himself to a height where *this natural instinct* no longer makes him a slave: *higher, nobler feelings are awakened*, which, notwithstanding *their sensual origin*, expand into *a world of beauty, sublimity, and morality*.
On this height man overcomes his *natural instinct*, and *from an inexhaustible spring* draws material and inspiration *for higher enjoyment, for more earnest work, and the attainment of the ideal*. Maudsley (Deutsche Klinik, 1873, 2, 3) rightly calls the sexual feeling the foundation for the development of the social feeling. ”Were man to be robbed of the instinct of procreation and all that arises from it mentally, nearly all poetry and, perhaps, the entire moral sense as well, would be torn from his life“[†].
Sexuality is *the most powerful factor in individual and social existence*; the strongest incentive to the exertion of strength and *acquisition of property, to the foundation of a home, and to the awakening of altruistic feelings*, first for a person of the opposite sex, then for the offspring, and, in a wider sense, *for all humanity*.
Thus all ethics and, perhaps, a good part of aesthetics and religion *depend upon the existence of sexual feeling*.
Though the sexual life leads to *the highest virtues, even to the sacrifice of the ego*, yet in its sensual force lies also the danger that it may degenerate into powerful passions and develop the grossest vices.
Love as an unbridled passion is like a fire that burns and consumes everything; like an abyss that swallows all.—honour, fortune, well-being.
It seems of high psychological interest to trace the developmental phases through which, in the course of the evolution of human culture to the morality and civilisation of to-day, the sexual life has passed...”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 1-2, “Psychopathia Sexualis” by Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing; translated by Dr. Charles Gilbert Chaddock, 1884; F. A. Davis Co., Philadelphia & F. J. Redman, London).
[†]What follows is the context for that quotation from Dr. Henry Maudsley (and highlighted for convenience). Viz.:
• [Dr. Maudsley]: “In considering the complex nature of the emotions or affections of mind, it is necessary not only to take account of the inherited acquisitions of the race, of the more special inheritance from the immediate ancestors, and of the effects of education, but it is necessary also to take account of the effects which the different bodily organs exert upon the mental life. They are the foundations of the affective nature. (...elided...). We have the plainest instance of this in the case of the reproductive organs, the functional development of which, taking place somewhat abruptly at puberty, works a complete revolution in the mental character. The individual is transformed: his entire sentiency is changed, and he becomes susceptible to impressions which before were completely indifferent to him; a look, a tone, an odour, a touch arouses emotion that is quite new to him, and sympathetic ideas that come he knows not whence or how. (...elided...). If we were to go on to follow the development of the sexual instinct to its highest reach we should not fail to discover a great range of operation; for we might trace its influence in the highest feelings of mankind, social, moral, and religious. These evolutional effects of the functional development of the reproductive organs upon the mind do not take place when such development is prevented by their removal before puberty. The minds of eunuchs are mutilated like their bodies; they are said to be cowardly, envious, liars, utterly deceitful, destitute of social and moral feeling; with the deprivation of sexual feeling, they are deprived of all the mental growth and energy which it inspires directly or remotely. How much that is it would be hard to say; but *were man deprived of the instinct of propagation, and of all that mentally springs from it, it is probable that most of the poetry, and perhaps all the moral feeling, would be cut out of his life*. We have not the same opportunity of observing the mental efforts of other bodily organs which we have in the case of the reproductive organs, because...”. ~ (pp. 270-273, “The Physiology of Mind”, by Dr. Henry Maudsley, MD, FRCP (1835-1918); 3rd Edition, Enlarged and Revised, 1876; Macmillan & Co.).
Just as a timely reminder, here, again, is what the aspirant arguer had to say regarding the above:
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: “For Krafft-Ebing, normal sexual desire was situated within a larger context of procreative utility ...”.
There is a distinct possibility the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay has not even opened the book (let alone read-and-digested even the first two pages of this 432-page volume).
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: In the Western world, long before sex acts were separated into the categories hetero/ homo
{36}, there was a different ruling binary: procreative or non-procreative.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{36}Editorial Note: First of all: as the “sex acts” which nowadays fall under the rubric “homosexual” were prevalent as far back in time as historical sources go—and beyond into prehistory—it is pointless to speculate about what might or might not have transpired “long before” then.
(If the aspirant arguer is referring to anywhen prior to May 6th 1868—which is quite likely given their bent—then it is apposite to once again point out how it was a closet “homosexual”, who separated the “sex acts” into the categories “Homosexuale”/ “Heterosexuale”, and not those dastardly ‘breeders’).
Second, as religion played a central role in earlier times then any moral division in behavioural patterns was more of a carnal-divine nature (e.g., worldly-heavenly) than anything else.
And, third, the buzz-word “binary” basically means “consisting of, indicating, or involving two”, in its adjectival sense (e.g., ‘bipartite’, ‘twofold’; ‘biform’; ‘duplex’), and “a whole composed of two” as a noun (e.g., ‘a binary star’), according to Webster’s College Dictionary, as well as referring to “a numeration system based on digits 0 and 1” (i.e., ‘binary notation’ or ‘binary code’).
There is no prize for guessing who co-opted the word “binary” for use in separating the “sex acts” into the categories “hetero/ homo” because, again, it was not those dastardly ‘breeders’ (who naturally think in terms of the 50-50 male-female divide, as constituting the two parts of a whole, all throughout the sexually-bipartite animal world) because a 99% and 1% ratio barely even registers for the vast majority of humankind.
Put succinctly, it is an absurd misuse of what a word representing “a whole composed of two” quite obviously means.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: The Bible, for instance, condemns homosexual intercourse
{37} for the same reason it condemns masturbation: because life-bearing seed is spilled in the act. While this ethic was largely taught, maintained, and enforced by the Catholic Church and later Christian offshoots, it’s important to note that the ethic comes not primarily from Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but from Stoicism.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{37}Editorial Note: First of all, biblical sources do not condemn [quote] “homosexual intercourse” [endquote], as such, as that misappropriation of the traditional intromissive penile-vaginal term “sexual intercourse” (as per the ‘homo-sexual intercourse’ phraseology) is part of a modern-day attempt to regularise and normalise—through a concerted and sustained public relations indoctrination campaign quite out of proportion to the numerical minoritarian status of those males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion—what is otherwise known as ‘sodomy’, ‘buggery’ and the ilk.
Moreover, as the example of “life-bearing seed” being
“spilled in the act” (i.e., the example of onanism) is specifically instanced by the aspirant
arguer so as to illustrate the reason for the condemnation of the caricatural same-sex impersonation of “sexual
intercourse” (i.e., of the intromissive penile-vaginal coitus) it is pertinent to point out that its primary source is the biblical
“Genesis 38:9” passage
from the fifth century BCE (wherein a second-born son disobediently practices ‘coitus
interruptus’, so as to preclude pregnancy for some unstated reason, at the climax of obligatory “sexual intercourse”
(i.e., intromissive penile-vaginal coition) with his older brother’s widow—whose husband had earlier been slain by the tribal god for some
unnamed wickedness—whereupon the same tribal god slew this second brother for his disobedience and whereafter the first-born son’s unfertilised
relict tricked her widower father-in-law, shortly after his wife had died, into impregnating her with
twins by pretending to be a whore, as she had not been given unto his third-born son (the last surviving brother) to wife, and for which act of
harlotry he had paid her a goat-kid).
As the fifth century BCE predates the third to second centuries BCE of the earliest Stoicism (‘Early Stoa’) by at least two centuries then the aspirant arguer’s insistence that “the ethic” (i.e., the condemnation of males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion engaging in forever-barren same-sex imitative sex acts) “comes not primarily from Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but from Stoicism” is quite odd.
Moreover, why is it “important to note” just who the condemnation of males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion engaging in forever-barren same-sex imitative sex acts primarily comes from?
Further to that query—and given that the rubric “Stoicism” covers three periods (‘Early Stoa’, third to second centuries BCE; ‘Middle Stoa’, second to first centuries BCE; ‘Late Stoa’, first to second centuries CE)—what period of Stoicism did that “ethic” condemning the infecundous same-sex imposturage of fecundous other-sex sexual union stem from?
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: As Catholic ethicist Margaret Farley points out, Stoics “held strong views on the power of the human will to regulate emotion and on the desirability of such regulation for the sake of inner peace”
{38}.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{38}Editorial Note: As that part-quote says nothing about any condemnation of males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion engaging in forever-barren same-sex imitative sex acts by “Stoics” (to advocate the utilisation of willpower to “regulate emotion” hardly qualifies as condemning the caricatural infecundous same-sex imposturage of fecundous other-sex sexual union) the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay did appear to be barking up the wrong tree, here, on first sight.
Howsoever, the context from which that part-quote was excerpted reveals the full story. Viz.
• “Of all Graeco-Roman philosophies, Stoicism probably had the greatest impact on later developments in Western thought about sex. Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius, for example, *taught strong doctrines of the power of the human will to regulate emotion and of the desirability of such regulation for the sake of inner peace*. Sexual desire, like the passions of fear and anger, was in itself irrational, disruptive, liable to excess. It needed to be moderated if not eliminated. It ought never to be indulged in for its own sake but only insofar as it served a rational purpose. Procreation was that purpose. Hence, even in marriage sexual intercourse was considered morally good only when engaged in for the sake of procreation
. [emphasis added].
With the later Stoics came what Foucault calls the ‘conjugalization’ of sexual relations
So, as the full quotation above refers to the ‘Stoic Platonism’ of such thinkers as “Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius” then it was during the first and second centuries of this current era, known as the ‘Late Stoa’ period, that the Stoic condemnation of males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion engaging in forever-barren same-sex imitative sex acts stems from.
(This means it comes 600-700 years after the biblical “Genesis 38:9” passage).
Therefore, even the full quotation does not establish the aspirant arguer’s claim that “the ethic” (i.e., the condemnation of males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion engaging in forever-barren same-sex imitative sex acts) “comes not primarily from Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but from Stoicism” (and neither does it explain why it is “important to note” that even if it were to be true) as the “Christian Scriptures” stem from the same period and the “Jewish Scriptures” have been dated to circa 600 BCE.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Musonius Rufus, for example, argued in “On Sexual Indulgence” that individuals must protect themselves against self-indulgence, including sexual excess
{39}.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{39}Editorial Note: The following is an extract from an article about Mr. Gaius Musonius Rufus from the online “Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy”. Viz.:
• “Gaius Musonius Rufus was one of the four great Stoic philosophers of the Roman empire, along with Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. (...elided...). Musonius condemned all luxuries and disapproved of sexual activity outside of marriage. (...elided...). He thought that men who live luxuriously desire a wide variety of sexual experiences, both legitimate and illegitimate, with both women and men. He remarked that sometimes licentious men pursue a series of male sex-partners. Sometimes they grow dissatisfied with available male sex-partners and choose to pursue those who are hard to get. Musonius condemned all such recreational sex acts. He insisted that only those sex acts aimed at procreation within marriage are right. He decried adultery as unlawful and illegitimate. He judged homosexual relationships as an outrage contrary to nature. He argued that anyone overcome by shameful pleasure is base in his lack of self-control, and so blamed the man (married or unmarried) who has sex with his own female slave as much as the woman (married or unmarried) who has sex with her male slave. Musonius argued that there must be companionship and mutual care of husband and wife in marriage since its chief end is to live together and have children. Spouses should consider all things as common possessions and nothing as private, not even the body itself. (...elided...). Marriage is the way for a person to create a family to provide the well-being of the city. Therefore, Musonius judged that anyone who deprives people of marriage destroys family, city, and the entire human race. He reasoned that this is because humans would cease to exist if there were no procreation, and there would be no just and lawful procreation without marriage. He concluded that marriage is important and serious because great gods (Hera, Eros, Aphrodite) govern it. Musonius opined that the bigger a family, the better. He thought that having many children is beneficial and profitable for cities while having few or none is harmful. Consequently, he praised the wise lawgivers who forbade women from agreeing to be childless and from preventing conception, who enacted punishment for women who induced miscarriages, who punished married couples who were childless, and who honoured married couples with many children...”.~ (from “Musonius Rufus (circa 30-62 CE)” by William O. Stephens, Creighton University, U S A).
Again, none of the above—a blanket proscription of any and all forms of non-concipient sexual acts with anyone or anything (inclusive of marital spouse)—confirms the aspirant arguer’s claim that
“the ethic” (i.e., the condemnation of males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion engaging
in forever-barren same-sex imitative sex acts) “comes not primarily from Jewish or Christian Scriptures,
but from Stoicism” (and neither does it explain why it is “important to note” that even
if it were to be true) as the “Christian Scriptures” stem from the same ‘Late Stoa’ period and
the “Jewish Scriptures” have been dated to circa 600 BCE.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: To curb this sexual indulgence, notes theologian Todd Salzman, Rufus and other Stoics tried to situate it “in a larger context of human meaning”
{40}—arguing that sex could only be moral in the pursuit of procreation.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{40}Editorial Note: Here is that part-quote in full:
• “The Stoic Musonius Rufus, in his Reliquia, and Seneca, in his Fragments, considered sexual desire and activity to be irrational and liable to excess. They sought, therefore, to rationally order it by situating it *in a larger context of human meaning*, and they did this by asking about its telos, its purpose or end. That end, they judged, was the procreation of children, and therefore sexual activity was moral only when it was engaged in for the sake of procreation. The later Stoics went further. Not only was sexual activity for procreation, but also it was to be limited to marriage; there could be no moral sex outside of marriage. Stoic philosophers both ‘conjugalized’ and ‘procreationalized’ sexual relations...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (Sexual Ethics: A Theological Introduction by Todd A. Salzman, Michael G. Lawler; 2012, Georgetown University Press).
Once more, none of the above confirms the aspirant arguer’s claim that “the ethic comes not primarily from Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but from Stoicism” (and neither does it explain why it is “important to note” that even if it were to be true) as the “Christian Scriptures” stem from the same ‘Late Stoa’ period and the “Jewish Scriptures” have been dated to circa 600 BCE.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Early Christian theologians took up this conjugal-reproductive ethic, and by the time of Augustine, reproductive sex was the only normal sex
{41}.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{41}Editorial Note: And here the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay carries on regardless as if their claim that “the ethic comes not primarily from Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but from Stoicism” has been established by those part-quotes (when even the full context does no such thing).
(And neither do those full quotations, even, explain why it is “important to note” such a claim).
Given the “Christian Scriptures” stem from the same ‘Late Stoa’ period, and the “Jewish Scriptures” have been dated to circa 600 BCE, then the Christian ‘Old Testament’ (a.k.a. the Judaic ‘Torah’)—upon which the ‘New Testament’ inextricably situates itself—remains the primary source of the biblical condemnation of the caricatural same-sex imposturage of intromissive penile-vaginal mating by males of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: While Krafft-Ebing takes this procreative sexual ethic for granted, he does open it up in a major way. “In sexual love the real purpose of the instinct, the propagation of the species, does not enter into consciousness”, he writes
{42}.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{42}Editorial Note: As that quoted half-sentence has been taken out of its context—so as to appear as if supportive of this ‘queer-centric’ “procreative or non-procreative” theme being developed helter-skelter in the preceding paragraphs—it is essential to copy-paste an extensive range of text (with that half-sentence highlighted for convenience) so as to inject a modicum of intelligibility into this part of the aspirant arguer’s essay. Viz.:
• “The study of the sexual life in the individual must begin at its development at puberty, and follow it through its different phases to the extinction of sexual feelings. (...elided...). The psychological reaction of the sexual impulse at puberty expresses itself in a multitude of manifestations which have in common only the mental condition of emotion and the impulse to express in some way, or render objective, the strange emotionality. Religion and poetry lie close to it, which, after the time of sexual development is past and these originally incomprehensible feelings and impulses have cleared up, receive powerful incentives from the sexual sphere. (...elided...). Any attempt to explain the relations between religion and love has difficulties to encounter. Many analogies present themselves. The feeling of sexual attraction and religious feeling (considered as a psychological fact) consist of two elements. In religion the primary element is a feeling of dependence,—a fact which Schleiermacher recognised long before the later studies in anthropology and ethnography, founded on the observation of primitive conditions, had led to the same conclusion. It is only at a higher stage of culture that the second and essentially ethical element—love of God—enters into religious feeling. In the place of the evil spirits of the primitive peoples came the two-faced—now kind, now angry—creations of the more complicated mythologies, until, finally, the God of love, as the giver of eternal happiness, is reverenced, whether this be hoped for from Jehovah, as a blessing on earth; from Allah, as a physical blessing in Paradise; from Christ, as eternal bliss in heaven; or as the Nirvana of the Buddhists. In sexual desire, love, the expectation of unbounded happiness is the primary element. The feeling of dependence is of secondary development. The nucleus of this feeling exists in both parties, but it may remain undeveloped in one. As a rule, owing to her passive part in procreation and social conditions, it is more pronounced in woman; but exceptionally this is true of men having minds that approach the feminine type. In both the religious and sexual spheres love is mystical, transcendental. *In sexual love the real purpose of the instinct, the propagation of the species, does not enter into consciousness*; and the strength of the desire is greater than any that consciousness of purpose could create. In religion, however, the good sought and the object of devotion are of such nature that they cannot become a part of empirical knowledge. Therefore, both mental processes give unlimited range to the imagination. But both have an immortal object, in as far as the bliss which the sexual sentiment creates in fancy seems incomparable and infinite in contrast with all other pleasurable feelings; and the same is true of the promised blessings of faith, which are conceived to be eternal and supreme. From the correspondence between the two states of consciousness, with reference to the commanding importance of their objects, it follows that they both often attain an intensity that is irresistible, and which overcomes all opposing motives. Owing to their similarity in that their objects cannot be attained, it follows that both easily degenerate into silly enthusiasm, in which the intensity of feeling far surpasses the clearness and constancy of the ideas. In both cases, in this enthusiasm, with the expectation of a happiness that cannot be attained, the necessity of unconditional submission plays a part. Owing to the correspondence in many points between these two emotional states, it is clear that when they are very intense the one may take the place of the other; or one may appear by the side of the other, since every intensification of one element of mental life also intensifies its associations. The constant emotion thus calls into consciousness now one and now the other of the two series of ideas with which it is connected...”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 7-9, “Psychopathia Sexualis” by Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing; translated by Dr. Charles Gilbert Chaddock, 1884; F. A. Davis Co., Philadelphia & F. J. Redman, London).
Thus, far from the half-sentence quote being about Dr. Krafft-Ebing taking that “procreative sexual ethic” for granted—let alone opening it up in a major way—it can be readily seen that he is talking about a carnal-divine division betwixt the “sexual sphere” and the “religious sphere” (as in, between “sexual love” and “religious love”, that is) and how the love in both spheres is “mystical, transcendental” whereafter, immediately following-on from that latter word, he elucidates such numinous sublimity by explaining how “in sexual love” the real purpose of “the [sexual] instinct” (the propagation of the species) “does not enter into consciousness” because the strength of “the [sexual] desire” is greater than any “consciousness of purpose” could create.
(It is as if the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay does not know what the words “mystical, transcendental” refer to).
Furthermore, as that half-sentence in its context is written in a descriptive manner (i.e., how things literally operate)—and not in a prescriptive manner (i.e., how things ought to operate)—it cannot even be claimed that he is, somehow or other, doing anything other than just that.
Lastly, not only is it unscholarly to mislead the reader in this manner—the reader who does not check quoted text against source material that is—it is downright deceitful to the layperson readership at large.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: In other words, sexual instinct contains something like a hard-wired reproductive aim—an aim that is present even if those engaged in ‘normal’ sex aren’t aware of it
{43}.{cont’d after next ...}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{43}Editorial Note: First, and just to up-date the objectivity record even further again: as well as granting the ab initio mundi nature of fecund other-sex sexuality its objectivity (as per the candid “heterosexual sex is clearly as old as humanity” admission) and according coition its objectivity (as per the honest “indeed, we wouldn’t have survived this long without it” agreement), plus further conceding the objectivity of the very drive which causes coitus to take place (as per the frank “sex is something that appears hardwired into most species” acknowledgement)—which drive’s objectivity is elsewhere endorsed by labels such as “natural sexual instinct”, “normal sexual instinct” (a.k.a. “the hetero-sexual instinct” in 1892), etcetera—as well as reconfirming its ab initio mundi nature and granting the objectivity of the word “sexual” in doing so (as per the graphic “there have always been sexual instincts throughout the animal world (sex)” admittance), the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay now accords objectivity to the very purpose of this other-sex sexual drive (as per the explanatory “sexual instinct contains something like a hard-wired reproductive aim...that is present even if those engaged in ‘normal’ sex aren’t aware of it” sentence).
To proceed: this objectively-existent “sexual instinct” with its objectively-existent “
hard-wired reproductive aim” is why that objectively-existent “old as humanity” male-female sexuality (impelled as it is by the objectively-existent “hardwired into most species” instinctive attraction to, and of, the other sex) was and is “natural” as well as “normal” inasmuch those persons engaged in male-female coital union—(such as some native tribes-peoples two or so thousand years ago, who were yet to make the connection between coition and conception-gestation-parturition, and the far-distant hunter-gatherer ancestors of each and every person of each and every ethnicity currently populating the planet)—need not necessarily be aware that in coitising a.k.a. copulating they are in fact (potentially) procreating, reproducing themselves, and thus perpetuating their kind unto
unknowable numbers of future generations, just as their progenitor and progenitrix did, before them, and as their progenitors and progenitrices did,
before them, and so and so forth way back unto the ancestral mists of prehistory (wherein some culturally-specific primogenitor and primogenitrix purportedly originated the entire human race).
Ain’t life grand!
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Jonathan Ned Katz, in “The Invention of Heterosexuality”, notes the impact of Krafft-Ebing’s move. “Placing the reproductive aside in the unconscious, Krafft-Ebing created a small, obscure space in which a new pleasure norm began to grow”
{44}.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{44}Editorial Note: Well, well, well ... so, the unscholarly misleader and layperson deceiver was none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Katz, eh?
Viz.:
[emphases added; italics in original]. (page 21, “The Invention Of Heterosexuality” by Jonathan Ned Katz; 1995, Dutton; 2007, UCP, Chicago).• [Mr. Katz]: “Conspicuously absent from the Viennese doctor’s large tome on all varieties of sick sex is any reference to what some other doctors called “conjugal onanism”, or “frauds in the accomplishment of the generative function”—birth control⁷.
In the heat of different-sex lust, declares Krafft-Ebing, men and women are not usually thinking of baby making: *“In sexual love the real purpose of the instinct, the propagation of the species, does not enter into consciousness⁸”*. An unconscious procreative “purpose” informs his idea of “sexual love”. His sexual instinct is a predisposition with a built-in reproductive aim. That instinct is procreative—whatever the men and women engaged in heterosexual acts are busily desiring. *Placing the reproductive aside in the unconscious, Krafft-Ebing created a small, obscure space in which a new pleasure norm began to grow*.
Krafft-Ebing’s procreative, sex-differentiated, and erotic “sexual instinct” was present by definition in his term heterosexual—his book introduced that word to many Americans. A hyphen between Krafft-Ebing’s “hetero” and “sexual” newly spliced sex-difference and eroticism to constitute a pleasure defined explicitly by the different sexes of its parties. His hetero-sexual, unlike Kiernan’s, does not desire two sexes, only one, different, sex.
Krafft-Ebing’s term hetero-sexual makes no explicit reference to reproduction, though it always implicitly includes reproductive desire. Always therefore, his hetero-sexual implicitly signifies erotic normality. His twin term, homosexual, always signifies a same-sex desire, pathological because non-reproductive...”.
First of all, Mr. Katz’s assertions regarding “A hyphen between Krafft-Ebing’s ‘hetero’ and ‘sexual’...” as well as “His hetero-sexual...” and including “Krafft-Ebing’s term hetero-sexual...” are a dead giveaway that he has not checked the accuracy of Prof. Chaddock’s English translation against Dr. Krafft-Ebing’s German original inasmuch the hyphenating was purely a feature of the English edition as Dr. Krafft-Ebing did not hyphenate the German word (videlicet: “heterosexuale” and “heterosexualer” and “heterosexualem” and “heterosexualen” as already re-presented earlier).
Thus what Mr. Katz is basing his fantastical “newly spliced sex-difference” conjecture upon looks something like the following (for example) when in accord with reality. Viz.:
• [example only]: “A hyphen between Chaddock’s “hetero” and “sexual” newly spliced sex-difference and eroticism to constitute a pleasure defined explicitly by the different sexes of its parties. His hetero-sexual, unlike Kiernan’s, does not desire two sexes, only one, different, sex. Chaddock’s term hetero-sexual makes no explicit reference to...”. [end example].
Second, that aforementioned distinct possibility—of the aspirant arguer not having even opened the book—has now become highly probable (insofar as they are most likely just lifting their ‘talking points’, so to speak, directly from Mr. Katz’s ‘bizarro-world’ book of bull).
Third, this reduces the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay to being something more akin to a
scrivener
than a writer.
Last, but not at all least, it demonstrates the perils inherent in relying on secondary, or even tertiary, sources without
checking the validity of quotes and footnotes against primary source material (as well as how disadvantageous it is not being truly an author—as per
its Latin origins (auctor, ‘creator’, from auctus, past participle of augēre, ‘to create’) that is—and thence generating
authentic writing, directly from primary sources, for the delectation of all).
To proceed with Mr. Katz’s fantastical conjecture: as the world population went from 1.4 billion in 1886 to 7.3 billion in
2017 it is quite obvious that—despite Dr. Krafft-Ebing allegedly placing “the reproductive” (whatever
that substantivised adjective might be representing) in “the unconscious” (wherever that substantivised
adjective might be
referencing)—the very raison d’ętre of fecund other-sex sexuality has been functioning with undiminished vigour, all that while, as a
seven-fold increase is not only indicative of an increasingly active reproductive capacity on a world-wide basis (as evidenced by the ready
availability and take-up of a wide range of contraceptive choices from family *planning* clinics and the ilk), but of an increasingly
conscious reproductive ability as well, rather than conception/ fecundation/ insemination/ impregnation/ fertilisation occurring spasmodically
and/or haphazardly from some Nouveau-Freudian “unconscious” reproductiveness.
As for Dr. Krafft-Ebing allegedly creating “a small, obscure space” in which
“a new pleasure norm” began to grow it is immediately obvious that the wily Mr. Katz, just like the
scrivener (i.e., the
ex-arguer), ignores entirely the carnal-divine context of that half-sentence quote because when Dr. Krafft-Ebing refers to “the
higher, nobler feelings” being awakened, which, notwithstanding their sensual origin, “expand into a world of beauty, sublimity,
and morality” from which “inexhaustible spring” comes the “awakening of
altruistic feelings” (awakened and felt for, first, a person of the opposite sex, then for the offspring, and, in a wider sense, for all
humanity) such that “the sexual life” thus leads to “the highest virtues”
possible—even to the “sacrifice of the ego” no less—he is most certainly *not* talking about any such
turpitudinous “new pleasure norm” whence the “homosexual” community (which Mr. Katz’s doyen status thereamong bespeaks his first-hand knowledge) evidently obtain their
many and varied carnal pleasures, but is instead, as per that carnal-divine divide, speaking of the very opposite.
Quite frankly, both the scrivener (i.e., the ex-arguer) and their deceiver-in-chief mentor could not be more wrong (i.e., in error) if they tried.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: The importance of this shift—from reproductive instinct to erotic desire—can’t be overstated, as it’s crucial to modern notions of sexuality
{45}.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{45}Editorial Note: Whilst it is indubitably true that “modern notions” of the state or condition having the form or character of sex (i.e., “sexuality” as per dictionaries as distinct from the social-constructivist “sexuality” of those post-modern bull-artists) are different from when religious bodies and hereditary royalty held sway over the citizenry at large—and vastly different from the “fire and brimstone” notions of fundamentalists of any ilk—nevertheless, those “notions” being referred to are the public notions (instituted typically by a small but powerful coterie of influential avant-garde activists with access to the switches and/or levers controlling cultural values and/or societal standards) and not necessarily the private notions (read: ‘intuitions’) which each and every individual constituting that citizenry-at-large intuitively know, hence affectively feel, thence cognitively envisage, and, thereafter, physicalise privately in their domestic domain.
Thus those “modern notions” are really long-held ‘private notions’ which have become ‘public notions’ via the gradual loosening of what is publicly permissible—(which public permissibility, in and of itself, stems from private permissibility gaining public acceptance anyway)—during the democratising transition from religious bodies and hereditary royalty holding sway, over the citizenry-at-large, to electoral restraint on governance, via universal suffrage, by that citizenry-at-large.
Therefore, as any such soi-disant[†] “shift from reproductive instinct to erotic desire” is but a public shift in espoused principles & values and/or morals & ethics—there has been no corresponding private shift as such (because peoples in general are, typically, continuing with how they already were privately anyway)—then its “importance” can indeed be “overstated” as nothing much of a substantive nature has changed per se.
[†]The hyphenated adjective “soi-disant” is deliberately used as the two self-styled terms “erotic desire” (i.e., lustful urges; a.k.a. concupiscence)
This is because the organic operative puissance
• [Dr. Krafft-Ebing]: “The propagation of the human species is not committed to accident or to the caprice of the individual, but made secure in a natural instinct, which, with all-conquering force and might {a.k.a. puissance}, demands fulfilment. In the gratification of this natural impulse are found not only sensual pleasure and sources of physical well-being, but also higher feelings of satisfaction in perpetuating the single, perishable existence, by the transmission of mental and physical attributes to a new being...”.~ (page 1, “Psychopathia Sexualis” by Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing; translated by Dr. Charles Gilbert Chaddock, 1884; F. A. Davis Co., Philadelphia & F. J. Redman, London).
Put ultra-simplistically for effect: if humans were self-motivating in regards perpetuating the species then blind nature would not have made coition so voluptuously
And the brute-level effectiveness of this libidinosity (i.e., procreative instinct) permeated through-and-through with concupiscence (i.e., erotic desire) is borne out by the best estimates from the annual reports of the “United Nations Fund for Population Activities” which show how as many as fifty percent of worldwide pregnancies are unplanned. As the ᴜɴғᴘᴀ was not formed until 1969, and as no such worldwide estimates exist prior to their first annual report in 1978, it cannot be known for sure just what the incidence of unplanned pregnancies was over the century-long period between the 1860s and the 1960s.
Nor, of course, the number of ‘knobstick marriages’ (a.k.a. ‘shotgun weddings’ in America) which ensued as a result. But given the current fifty percent figure is as high as it is—despite several decades of the increasing liberalisation of sex education, the increasing availability of contraception, the increasing acceptance of adoption, the increasing access to medically-safe abortions and the increasing risk of venereal diseases—then the percentage of unplanned pregnancies over the 100-year period 1860-1960 can only have been higher. Indeed, the estimates the ᴜɴғᴘᴀ publishes for under-developed countries with faith-based cultures bears this out: the number of unplanned pregnancies in those areas of the world are up to twenty percent higher than for the secular and developed countries.
Therefore, as upwards of three-quarters of the species regeneration is directly attributable to the libidinosity-&-concupiscence combo (i.e., the “reproductive instinct” and “erotic desire” jointly) it is more than likely the human race would have died-out aeons ago had it been left to humankind to reproduce itself.
In summary: what was underground—forced underground by religious edict and/or royal fiat—has become overground.
(What is known as ‘a permissive society’ is a society which does openly what was previously done secretly).
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: When most people today think of heterosexuality, they might think of something like this: Billy understands from a very young age
{46} he is erotically attracted to girls. One day he focuses that erotic energy on Suzy, and he woos her. The pair fall in love, and give physical sexual expression to their erotic desire. And they live happily ever after.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{46}Editorial Note: It is simply not true that “from a very young age” human beings understand they are “erotically attracted” to the other sex as any such sexual attractivity has its onset at and/or during pubescence. Even so, a 2009 study of forty-four countries world-wide revealed the average age of first-time coitus to be eighteen-and-a-half years (ranging from Malaysia at twenty-three years to Iceland at fifteen-and-a-half years) despite the mean age of menarche—the initial onset of menstruation—having dropped from fourteen years, in fifteenth century Europe, to thirteen years globally in the twentieth-first century.
Also, as there is no mention of either (1.) nuptials (i.e., marriage or spousal equivalent) or (2.) any progeny (neither a child nor children) or (3.) any kith-&-kin (extended family and neighbourhood community) in the above narrative it is highly questionable whether “most people today” think of “heterosexuality” like that.
In fact, simply by changing the prefix “hetero-” to the “homo-” prefix, and the “-y” suffix of the first name to an “-ie” suffix, as well as affixing the letter “s” before the pronoun “he” three times, the result is not at all surprising in view of who dreamed it up. Viz.:
• [example only]: “When most people today think of homosexuality, they might think of something like this: Billie understands from
a very young agepubescence she is erotically attracted to girls. One day she focuses that erotic energy on Suzy, and she woos her. The pair fall in love, and give physical sexual expression to their erotic desire. And they live happily [sic] ever after”. [end example].
It is the automorphism inherent to the scrivener’s infecundous ‘queer-centric’ Weltanschauung which prevents them from comprehending that:
(1.) much more than just “most people
today” are of the fecundous other-sex sexual predisposition (i.e., the vast majority are) and: (2.) most of that vast majority think of
cohabitation in terms of nuptials (i.e., marriage or its spousal equivalent), because: (3.) most of that vast majority think of cohabitation in terms
of either a child or children and: (4.) most of that vast majority think of nuptials (i.e., marriage or its spousal equivalent) and its child or
children not only in terms of parental satisfaction and fulfilment but in terms of family and community (e.g., grandparentage, and its grandparental
satisfaction and fulfilment, as well as reciprocal community networking), because: (5.) they are, instinctively, peoples of the fecundative other-sex
sexual proclivity (and such instinctivity is a potent and compelling driving force).
Quite simply, persons of the fecundous other-sex sexual predisposition instinctively know—thus affectively intuit hence cognitively envisage—quite differently about a girl-meets-boy a.k.a. boy-meets-girl type narrative than persons of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion do inasmuch any kind of and-they-live-happily-ever-after ending is almost entirely dependant upon those other-sex sexual spouses having lived-out what they are instinctively driven (a.k.a. genetically programmed) to do for therein lies their way-of-life fulfilment and thereat be their mores-and-folkways satisfaction and thereupon is their everyday-lifestyle contentment.
In view of the clamorous “anti-discrimination” agitation and vociferous “marriage-equality” activism for the (thereby
politically-correct) legalisation of an amative ‘same-sex’ marriage—differentiated thusly from the long-established procreative nuptials, be it either marriage or spousal equivalent,
by those activists themselves (e.g., “a loving, committed partnership of consenting adults” etcetera)—it is a most revealing narrative inasmuch
it artlessly displays, via the centrality of a triply-erotic yet perpetually-barren amative twosome, just what the time-honoured and august word “marriage” is thereafter required by legal fiat to
forevermore sanction.
Once again, the scrivener has performed a sterling public service act, and on the ʙʙᴄ website no less, for the whole world to potentially see ... to see revealed in all its gaudy glitz.
’Tis verily the age of minoritarian rule.
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Without Krafft-Ebing’s work, this narrative might not have ever become thought of as “normal”. There is no mention, however implicit, of procreation
{47}.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{47}Editorial Note: First of all, what the scrivener is essentially referring to (albeit with an atypical boy-meets-girl narrative) is how the prevalence of arranged marriages is not as wide-spread as it was in earlier times—which is especially common in nations where the transition, from religious bodies and hereditary royalty holding sway over the citizenry-at-large, to electoral restraint on governance by that citizenry-at-large, has not only been accomplished but has been established for more than at least one generation—such that marriageable individuals themselves make their own cohabitational arrangements.
To blandly state that without Dr. Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis” medico-legal study then “this narrative” (i.e., the atypical narrative—the demonstrably gender-neutral ‘queer-centric’ yarn about an unmarried, childless and triply-erotic twosome living amatively ever after—further above) might not have ever become thought of as “normal” is such a stretch as to be highly risible.
Moreover, to follow-up that cock-and-bull yarn
with the further assertion about there being “no mention, however implicit, of procreation” in Dr.
Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis” medico-legal study really takes the cake as a computer search with the search-string ‹‹procreation›› returned
ten hits and with ‹‹procreative›› another three hits plus a further six hits with the ‹‹reproductive›› search-string.
For example.:
• “Christianity gave the most powerful impulse to the moral elevation of the sexual relations by raising woman to social equality with man and elevating the bond of love between man and woman to a religio-moral institution. The fact that in higher civilisation human love must be monogamous and rest on a lasting contract was thus recognised. If nature does no more than provide for *procreation*, a commonwealth (family or state) cannot exist without a guaranty that the offspring shall flourish physically, morally, and intellectually. Christendom gained both mental and material superiority over the polygamous races, especially Islam, through the equalisation of woman and man, and by establishing monogamous marriage and securing it by legal, religious, and moral ties...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (pp.4-5, “Psychopathia Sexualis” by Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing; translated by Dr. Charles Gilbert Chaddock, 1884; F. A. Davis Co., Philadelphia & F. J. Redman, London).
Golly, if this level of fraudulent fantasy keeps up the scrivener might even try telling the reader next how Dr. Krafft-Ebing brought about a fundamental revolution in thinking about sex by defining normal sexual instinct (libidinosity) according to erotic desire (concupiscence).
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Defining normal sexual instinct according to erotic desire
{48} was a fundamental revolution in thinking about sex.{cont’d after next ...}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{48}Editorial Note: As the “normal sexual instinct” (i.e., lustful drives; a.k.a. libidinosity) is permeated through and through with “erotic
desire” (i.e., lustful urges; a.k.a. concupiscence)—insofar as libidinosity is what lustful drives are, or, put differently, concupiscence
is what lustful urges are—then there is nothing revolutionary about any such lucubration (let alone fundamental).
(End Editorial Note).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{... cont’d from before}.
• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Krafft-Ebing’s work laid the groundwork for the cultural shift that happened between the 1923 definition of heterosexuality as “morbid” and its 1934 definition as “normal”
{49}.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{49}Final Editorial Note: As no such “cultural shift" ever took place in the decade between an aberrant 1923 dictionary definition and a regular 1934 dictionary definition then any posited “fundamental revolution” in thinking about sex—and about sexuality as well mind you—which putatively laid the groundwork for that spurious societal change is just as fallacious.
(Any “posit” spawned by Mr. Katz has become automatically suss, by now, as he lost the last remaining shreds of credibility way, way earlier in this examen).
There are, however, at least six distinct major events which transpired, historically, about which there can be no doubt:
(veteran’s pension, old-age pension, widows pension, sickness benefit/ insurance, unemployment benefit/ insurance, disability pension, single parent pension/ benefit) brought about unprecedented income security and an end to unnecessary want.(1.): The medical profession, mainly in the area of psychiatry-psychology, gradually loosened the hold religious bodies had on infecund same-sex sexuality, in particular, and variant sexuality, in general, effectively transforming carnal sin into mental disorder.
(2.): Since infecund same-sex sexuality, in particular, and variant sexuality, in general, were no longer held in absolute sway (carnal sin) but relative control (mental disorder) it was only a matter of time before the arbitrary rubric ‘mental disorder’ began to unravel (helped along mightily by two world wars and the ongoing threat of a third with worldwide radioactive annihilation, a.k.a. MAD, its likely outcome).
(3.): With political power passing from royalty (divine right to rule) to citizenry (electoral restraint on governance), for the majority of the world’s population, that nexus betwixt Religion and State also sundered in approximately two-thirds of the world’s nations.
(4.) With compulsory public schooling introducing at least basic literacy and numeracy nation-wide, along with inexpensive mass-produced printed material and ready access to public libraries, comparative religio-cultural and politico-societal studies rang the death-knell for parochialism and/or provincialism (narrow-mindedness).
(5.) First seriously proposed in the USA in 1848, the introduction of universal suffrage (beginning in New Zealand, in 1893; in Australia in 1902; Finland, 1906; Norway, 1913; Russia 1917; USA 1920, Britain 1928; Brazil, 1934; France 1945; Switzerland, 1971) and its eventual women’s equality circa the 1960s—i.e., the decrease of patriarchal dominance concurrent with the increase in matriarchal dominance—with its resultant welfare state
(6.) The shift from the agrarian revolution to the industrial revolution to the technological revolution—with all the gains in medicinal knowledge, hygiene, sanitation, vaccinations, etcetera, and freedom from want in regards water, food, housing, clothing, medicine, etcetera—and the corresponding population growth and increasing affluence enabled what began in the Renaissance Period to finally reach its long-term fruition during the last two or three generations.
To try to pin any such “fundamental revolution” and/or any such “cultural shift” onto one man—and on Dr. Krafft-Ebing no less!—over an 11-year period (1923 to 1934) is an exercise in absurdity if there ever was.
As the scrivener’s revisitation of their pretermitting 1923-1934 “Merriam Webster” pseudo-argument—a graceless exercise in futility in which the enormity of the deceit such exclusory focussing seeks to perpetuate is exposed—brings to an end their second section this is as good a place as any further on, in their other two sections, to cease commenting as what followed on hereafter was paragraph after paragraph of more of the same fashion, as the above, such that the aspirant arguer’s argument cannot possibly progress from the nowhere it is has persistently remained at.
And the takeaway message of this essay? None other than what is encapsulated in the image-caption already quoted. Viz.:
• “While heterosexual sex is clearly as old as humanity, *the concept of heterosexuality as an identity* is a very recent invention (Credit: Getty Images)”. [emphasis added].
This entire ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay is solely about an increated sexual identity—a sexualised affective-psychic entity having no physical existence whatsoever—and is not at all about
sexuality itself (i.e., about the sexual aspect of bodies which, grounded in the sexual functioning of bodies, lies outside of history and culture
just like sex does) despite clumsily-worded language to the contrary.
Also, these peoples who present their faux-arguments (i.e., frame their
narratives) in terms of social constructs, and the ilk, have apparently never come across, or have never taken in, the adage about how the word is
not the thing (a.k.a. the map is not the territory).
’Tis such a simple adage, too (a child of five readily comprehends they cannot, and do not, eat the word ‘bread’ as it is only its real-world referent which the word signifies which can, and does, provide nutriments and thus satisfy their appetite).
Ain’t life grand!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• An examen of “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’” Contents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard’s Text ©1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer
and Use Restrictions