Feminity, Masculinity and Sexuality: genealogy and new narratives

The notion of femininity and masculinity does not derive from nature. I have very often heard people draw on examples taken from the animal world to justify and naturalize a behavior that is in fact attributed by society to women and men.The most frequent example is that of a species in which the sexual division of roles requires the male to hunt and the female to care for the offspring.This assumption is completely wrong because there is an important distinction between animals and human beings. This fundamental difference lies in the fact that it is Nature that prescribes animal behavior: the activities they must perform, the food they must eat, the methods of reproduction, etc.

Human beings, instead, are cultural animals; we can understand the culture of a given society at a given historical moment as the set of orientations that shape common sense and thus the ideas and behavior of individuals and their role within society. It is obvious that there are certain biological characteristics that distinguish females from males, such as the menstrual cycle or pregnancy. But everything else is not prescribed by one’s biological sex, but rather by gender, which is socially constructed.

What male gender and female gender are has been debated for centuries. I too was quite shocked when I discovered that throughout history different definitions of what it meant to be women and men have alternated.From this it follows that what is important to keep in mind is that these are not fixed concepts, but changeable ones—meanings contingent on a specific historical period or a given culture. And I’ll tell you more: relations between genders are embedded within broader dynamics of power.

I have followed feminist thought for a long time, and I have questioned myself countless times because it is an issue that seems so simple and natural yet is actually very difficult, delicate, and subtle.Therefore, I believe that in this case, it is necessary to “complexify” the discourse, taking into account different points of view and downscaling the prevailing narrative that tends toward simplification and refers only to Western feminism.

Initially, I followed the mainstream current of “strong and emancipated women,” and I lived under the illusion that, in order to keep up with the times and with men, one had to work hard and reach positions of certain prestige.At a certain point, there was a turning point; I understood something fundamental: I was adopting toxic “masculine” modes. The kind of behavior feminist currents criticize.Careful: when I speak of toxic masculine behaviors, I am not referring to the behavior of all men, but to those attitudes that have been and continue to be perpetuated by the majority of men in patriarchal society.Was feminism supposed to be about trying to resemble men as closely as possible? Or did this rather mean the destruction of the multiple traits that characterize femininity? And thus the valorization of masculine behavior and the devaluation of everything feminine?Well yes, I felt I was attaching myself to the trend of patriarchal society, which systematically belittles things done by women.I believe that now it is necessary to take a step forward and transform the world into a place for men and women, trans and queer people. A repositioning of the masculine is needed: from universal to particular. The masculine is not the measure of all things, but simply a category.What do I mean when I say that the masculine has occupied a universal position? The masculine has occupied a universal position whenever, for example, we use the word “men” to refer to the human race, which is composed of cis women, cis men, trans women, trans men—and perhaps other subjectivities I am not aware of.Thus, men are one of many possible subjectivities, one of many possible points of view—not the only one, not the main one, not the best one.The problem is that we are so used to using the words “men” and “human beings” as synonyms that we take for granted that this is correct. We continue to perpetuate this mistake despite being aware that human beings are not only men, because we think that language has no effect on reality.But the erasure of the feminine from language has been reflected in the obscuring of women’s perspectives and potential, as if women were something separate from humanity.Have you ever noticed that in the vast majority of films the protagonists are male? This is because it has been assumed that the stories of greatest importance are male stories, and then what happens to female characters? They become an instrument of male characters, in addition to being objectified.

I find it very difficult not to think about the way masculinity and femininity have been shaped by contemporary society. These are issues we see before our eyes every day—for example, the extremely different ways in which sexuality is experienced by most men and women.Shaming pleasure has been one of the most effective tools for dominating women, for colonizing the female body in various ways. In the book “Fruit of Knowledge: The Vulva vs. the Patriarchy” Liv Strömquist presents all those men who “were a little too interested in female genitals.”For example, Kellogg who tried to prevent women from touching their own genitals, and Baker-Brown who created a method to prevent female masturbation through the surgical removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy).

Below I present everything essential that I learned from her book, which I read in Portuguese because my roommate here in Brazil lent it to me; it’s truly innovative content and I would like it to be widely disseminated.I love this book because it allows us to trace a genealogy of certain taboos about sex and the menstrual cycle: only by discovering their origin can we become aware of their impact and then overturn them!

You must know that for years we have graphically represented female genitalia improperly and we have inadequately named the vulva, which is often confused with the vagina. What is the consequence of all this?The belief has gradually developed and taken root that female organs do not have an external part and are therefore only a “hole to be filled” by male protrusions—and thus that… women are by nature characterized by a lack that can be filled only through a heterosexual sexual act.

In the Stone Age, as well as in the Greek era, the vulva was not only represented graphically in large dimensions, but had strong spiritual and existential meaning, and was a symbol of strength. What is certain is that it was not in opposition to the sacred.The dominant narrative about female sexuality is that for women it is not only difficult to reach orgasm, but that rather than necessarily feeling pleasure and reaching orgasm, they need more emotional involvement. In contrast, according to pre-Enlightenment manuals, female orgasm was considered essential to achieve pregnancy.We know well that the narrative of male sexuality is that sex is highly desirable and orgasm inevitable and an essential part of the act.

Throughout history, two representations of the sexes have alternated: the first, until the Enlightenment, made no distinctions between male and female bodies: the vagina was represented as an inverted penis, the woman was an inferior version of the man.From the Enlightenment onward, however, the idea strengthened that women and men were characterized by irreconcilable opposition and complementarity; for example, it is said that during arousal the vagina lubricates to facilitate penetration, while in reality the clitoris becomes larger and firmer.

Why the Enlightenment? Because it was necessary to justify the inferiority of women through scientific means rather than divine ones. It is in this context that the idea of a sexuality clearly distinct between men and women takes shape.And women (some, like Wollstonecraft) accepted with relief the criterion of “lack of sexual desire” to distinguish themselves from men because, previously, they had been denigrated for their sexual transgressions: men were considered more capable of philosophical reasoning and endowed with higher morality.Thus, this is a total inversion of the female prototype: from sinful and carnal to characterized by an absence of sexual desire.

The discovery of the actual size of the clitoris dates back to 1998: the anterior wall of the vagina is inseparable from the internal part of the clitoris, so the distinction between vaginal and clitoral orgasm loses meaning because all orgasms originate in the clitoral complex.From this follows that the sexual ideal that considers clitoral stimulation as a preliminary step represents nothing more than the way of having sex most suited to male taste. (This is the feminist critique of sexual relations by Shere Hite).In reality, it is clitoral stimulation that should have a central role, with everything else being preliminary or post-coital!Even women who could not reach orgasm through heterosexual vaginal penetration—the only acceptable form according to Otto Adler and Freud—were considered sexually insensitive.

In ancient times, the menstrual cycle was considered something magical and divine, capable of creating a strong connection with the cosmos and its mysteries. And indeed, some archaeological finds present in formerly sacred places depict women’s menstruation.

I’ll tell you more: it is thought that some male combat rituals that involved bleeding were actually attempts to imitate the female menstrual cycle. Furthermore, bleeding was considered essential to rid oneself of excess blood.Patriarchal religions have made the cycle something dirty and disgusting.According to some psychoanalysts, the consequence of treating the menstrual cycle as taboo is that it spills abundantly into our collective unconscious, for example through dreams or symbols. One example is Sleeping Beauty, who—with the prick of her finger—would represent a rite of passage into puberty, while the curse symbolizes the fear of menstruation.

Sleeping Beauty’s sleep is due to the complexity of this process underway. Sometimes a period of rest is necessary to reach greater realization: not only what can be seen leads to achieving goals. For example, Rodin’s sculpture “The Thinker” would represent premenstrual syndrome as an elevated state of deep philosophical-existential reflection.One element that reinforces prejudice about the menstrual cycle is the psychological inversion mechanism of advertising and the sanitary-pad industry: for example, they say that pads contain molecules capable of neutralizing “bad” odors…But in reality it is disposable pads that pollute our planet, not the menstrual cycle that is dirty!

Happy reading,

until next time!

Ylenia