STRAIGHTTHESURPRISINGLYSHORTHISTORY

OFHETEROSEXUALITY

HANNEBLANK

BeaconPress·Boston

2

ForMalcolm

3

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONSexualDisorientation

CHAPTERONETheLoveThatCouldNotSpeakItsName

CHAPTERTWOCarnalKnowledge

CHAPTERTHREEStraightScience

CHAPTERFOURTheMarryingType

CHAPTERFIVEWhat’sLoveGottoDowithIt?

CHAPTERSIXThePleasurePrinciple

CHAPTERSEVENHereThereBeDragons

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

4

INTRODUCTION

SexualDisorientation

Every time I go to the doctor, I end up questioning my sexualorientation.Onsomeofitsforms,theclinicIvisitincludesfivelittleboxes,asmallmatterofdemographicbookkeeping.Nexttotheboxesare the options “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” or“heterosexual.”You’resupposedtocheckone.

You might not think this would pose a difficulty. I am a fairlygarden-varietyfemalehumanbeing,afterall,andIaminalong-termmonogamousrelationship,wellintoourseconddecadetogether,withsomeone who has male genitalia. But does this make us, or ourrelationship, straight?This turnsout tobeagoodquestion,becausethere is more to my relationship—and much, much more toheterosexuality—thaneasilymeetstheeye.

There’sbiology,foronething.Mypartnerwasdiagnosedmaleatbirth because he was born with, and indeed still has, a fullyfunctioningpenis.But,astheancientRomansusedtosay,barbanonfacitphilosophum—abearddoesnotmakeoneaphilosopher.Neitherdoeshavingagenitaloutienecessarilymakeonemale.Indeed,ofthetwosexchromosomes—XY—whichwouldbefoundinthegenesofa typical male, and XX, which is the hallmark of the geneticallytypicalfemale—mypartner’sDNAhasallthree:XXY,apatternthatissimultaneouslymale,female,andneither.

Thisparticulargeneticpattern,XXY,isthesignatureofKleinfelterSyndrome, one of the most common sex-chromosome anomalies.XXYoftengoesundiagnosedbecause thepeoplewhohave itoftenlook perfectly normal from the outside. In many cases, XXYindividualsdonotfindoutabout theirchromosomalanomalyunlessthey try to have children and end up seeing a fertility doctor, who

5

ultimatelyordersan imagecalledakaryotype,essentiallyaphotooftheperson’schromosomesmadewithaverypowerfulmicroscope.Inakaryotype,thetrisomy,orthree-chromosomegrouping,isinstantlyrevealed.As genetic anomalies go, this particular trisomy is not acauseformajoralarm(asidefrominfertility,itcausesfewsignificantproblems), which is a good thing, since it is fairly common. Theestimates vary, in part because diagnosis is so haphazard, but it isbelieved thatasmanyasone inevery twothousandpeoplewhoaredeclaredmale at birthmay in fact beXXY.Atminimum, there areabouthalfamillionAmericanswhosegeneticsarethisway,mostofwhomwillneverknowit.

Whatdoesanunusualsexualbiologymeanforsexualorientation?IsitevenpossibleforXXYpeopletohaveasexualorientationintheway we usually think about sexual orientation? What about theirlovers, partners, and spouses? “Heterosexual,” “homosexual,” and“bisexual”arealldependenton the idea that thereare two,andonlytwo, biological sexes. What happens when biology refuses to fitneatlyintothisscheme?IfI’mattractedto,andinlovewith,someonewhois technicallyspeakingneithermalenor female,does thatmakemeheterosexual,homosexual,bisexual,orsomethingelsealtogether?Whogetstodecide?And,moretothepoint,onwhatgrounds?

Somewouldarguethatgeneticsaren’tasimportantasanatomyandbodilyfunctions.Afterall,youcan’tseechromosomeswiththenakedeye.Buthere,too,Irunintoproblems.Partofwhatmakesaman,asweareall taughtfromchildhood, is thathehasapenisand testiclesthatproducesperm,whichinturnarenecessarytofertilizeafemale’segg cells and conceive a fetus. The ability to sire a child has beenconsidered proof of masculinity for thousands of years. This issomething my partner cannot do. His external plumbing looks andactsprettymuchlikeanygeneticallytypicalmale’s,but,inthewordsofoneofmypartner’svasectomiedcoworkers,“heshootsblanks.”Inmy partner’s case, no vasectomywas required.His testicles do notproduceviablesperm.Theyneverhaveandneverwill.ThisispartoftheterritoryformostpeoplewhohaveXXYsexchromosomes.

So if heterosexuality is by definition, as some of our right-wing

6

brothers and sisters like to claim, about themaking of babies, thenthere is no possibleway formy partner andme to be construed asheterosexual.ButeventheBiblerecognizesthatinfertilityexists.Thenotoriouslyprocreation-fixatedCatholicChurchpermitsmarriage,andmaritalsex,betweenpeopleknowntobeinfertile.Curiously,whetheror not reproduction is a cornerstone of heterosexuality seems todependonwhomyouask,andinwhatcircumstances.

Not that it really matters in practice. At this point in timecontraception ismore the rule than the exception for sexual activitybetween different-sex partners throughout the first world. Manypeople, includingmembersof committedmale/female couples, don’thave children or plan to have them, yet somehow this doesn’t stopthem from feeling quite certain that they know what their sexualorientationsare.Theyconsidersexualorientationasbeingrootedinacalculusof subjectiveattractionandbiological sameness.TheGreek“hetero”means“other”or“different,”afterall,andbiologicalmenandwomendodifferfromoneanother.Wemakeuseofthesebiologicaldifferenceseverydaywithout thinkingeverytimewelookatpeopleand identify themaseithermaleor female,askwhetherababyoradog is a boy or a girl, or determine the sexes of themembers of acouplewe spot on the street and assign them sexual orientations inourminds.

Surelysuchinformal,man-in-the-streetdiagnosticsoughttoapplyjust as well to my partner and me. Or perhaps not.As an XXYindividual who has chosen not to take hormone supplements, mypartner’s naturally occurring sex hormones take amiddle path. Hisestrogen levels hang out a little lower than mine, his testosteronelevelsalittlehigher.Asaresult,mypartner,likeotherXXYpeoplewho don’t take exogenous hormones, has an androgynousappearance, with little to no facial and body hair, a fine smoothcomplexion, and a tendency to develop small breasts and slightlyrounded hips if he puts on a little weight.[1] When we lived in aLGBT-heavyneighborhood inBoston,mypartner and Iwereoftenidentified by others as lesbians. We were regularly referred to as“ladies”byshopkeepers,door-todoorMormons,andparentstryingto

7

prevent theirkids fromcrowdingusat thezoo.Lesbiancouplesweencountered in passing oftenshot us little conspiratorial smiles ofrecognition. (We always smiled back. Still do.) But it wasn’t allpleasantries.Oncewhilewalkingtogetherwehadbottlesthrownatusfrom a car, its occupants screaming “Fuckin’ dykes!” out thewindowsas they spedaway.Assumptionsof sexualorientation arenevermerely innocent perceptions, because these perceptions shapebehavior.

Assumptions about biology and gender are complicated, fraught,and by no means clear or unambiguous. The ways people haveidentified my partner’s biological sex, and therefore not only thenatureofourrelationshiptooneanotherbutalsoourrespectivesexualorientations, have run an extraordinary gamut that might bedistressing if we hadn’t long ago learned to laugh at it all. Mypartner’s physical androgyny—the minimal facial hair, refinedcomplexion, and elegant, long-limbed build that are common sideeffectsofhisgeneticanomaly—hasledsomepeopletoassumethatheisafemale-to-maletranssexualwhoisearlyinthetransitionprocess,stillmorehormonallyfemalethanmale.Ihaveheardhimidentifiedasa“passingbutch.”Once,ataparty,Ioverheardawomanstatingwithassurance that my partner was a very feminine gay man who had“madeanexception”forme.AtothertimesIhavebeenassumedtobethe onemaking the exception, a “hasbian”who turned from datingwomentoseeingagentle,femininestraightman.Bythesametoken,these reactionshavechangedaswe’veagedandour stylesofdressand grooming have changed. For the past several years, with mypartnerusuallydressingincorporate-officemenswearandsportingadashing haircut modeled on the young Cole Porter’s, we havetypically, thoughnotalways,beenreadasheterosexual. If the rangeof responseswe’vehad can tellmeanything aboutwhatmy sexualorientationissupposedtobe, it’s thatotherpeopledon’tnecessarilyknowwhatboxIshouldbecheckingoffonthoseclinicformseither.

Myownsenseofsexualidentityis,incidentally,nohelp.Ihavenodeep personal attachment to labeling myself in terms of sexualorientation, nor do I have the sensation of “being” heterosexual or

8

homosexual or anything but a human beingwho loves and desiresotherhumanbeings. Ihavebeenromanticallyandsexually involvedwithpeopleofavarietyofbiological sexesand socialgendersoverthecourseofmyadultlife.Whenpressed,Iammostlikelytodeclaremy“sexualidentity”as“taken.”Thisoption,howevermuchitmightbethebestfit,isnotavailabletomeonmostformsthataskthissortofquestion.

I could, I suppose, resort to legal documents to sort out thequestion ofwhatmy orientation is, andwhat the orientation ofmyrelationshipwithmypartnermightbe.Hereatlastitisuncomplicated.Basedonourbirthcertificates,mypartnerandIandourrelationshipcould be defined as uncomplicatedly heterosexual. But there’s acaveat, and it’s abigone:our sexeswerediagnosed at birthon thebasisofavisualcheckofourgenitals,ontheassumptionthatexternalgenitals are an infallible indicator of biological sex. This is theassumption behind every “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl,” not justhistoricallybut everydayaround theworld.Thanks to thepublicitygiven to cases like that of intersex South African athlete CasterSemenyain2009,andindeedtotheinkIamspillinghere,however,mainstreamcultureisgraduallybecomingawarethatthisassumptionis not necessarily warranted. Many biologists, including BrownUniversity biologistAnne Fausto-Sterling, have eloquently testifiedthathumanshaveatleastfivemajorsexes—ofwhichtypicalmaleandtypical femalearemerely themostnumerous—and that furthermore,human chromosomes, gonads, internal sexual organs, externalgenitals, sex hormones, and secondary sexual characteristics canappearinmanydifferentguises.

Thelaw,however,stillacknowledgesonlytwosexes.Itdoesnotalways or necessarily acknowledge sexual orientation at all. On theoccasions when it does recognize sexual orientation, it typicallyacknowledges only two of them as well, heterosexual andhomosexual.(Onceinawhilebisexualityisincluded,butoftennot.)All of these sexual orientations are wholly dependent upon—andcouldnotbeconceptualizedwithout—thegeneralconsensusthattherearetwoandonlytwohumanbiologicalsexes.Butaswenowknow,

9

andasisdemonstratedsocharminglyinthepersonofmyveryownbeloved, this isnotnecessarily so.Rather, theconvenient sortingofhumanbeingsintotwobiologicalsexesandacorrespondinglylimitednumberofsexualorientationsisanartifactofahistoricalsystemthatwasformedatatimewhenmedicine,biology,andsocialtheorywerecapableoffarlessthantheyarenow.Wearestillusingaverylimitednineteenth-century set of ideas and terminology to talk about adecidedlymoreexpansive twenty-first-century landscapeofbiology,medicine,law,socialtheory,andhumanbehavior.

Ithas,inpointofactualfact,onlybeenpossibletobeaheterosexualsince1869.[2] Prior to that time,men andwomen gotmarried, hadsex,hadchildren, formed families, and sometimeseven fell in love,but they were categorically not heterosexuals. They didn’t identifythemselves as “being” something called “heterosexual.” They didn’tthinkof themselvesashavinga “straight” sexual identity,or indeedhave any awareness that something called a “sexual identity” evenexisted.Theycouldn’thave.Neitherthetermsnortheideasthattheyexpressexistedyet.

“Heterosexual”and“heterosexuality”arecreationsofaparticular,distinct,well-documentedtimeandplace.Theyarewords,andideas,developed by people whose names are known to us and whosehandwritten letters we can still read. Their adoption and integrationintoWesternculturewasaremarkableprocessthathistorianJonathanNedKatz, the first to chronicle it, has aptly called “the inventionofheterosexuality.”

Itwasan inventionwhose timehadclearlycome,for it took lessthanacenturyfor“heterosexual”and“heterosexuality”toleapoutofthehonestlyratherobscuremedicalandlegalbackwaterswheretheywerebornandbecomepartofavastandopaqueumbrellashelteringan enormous amount of social, economic, scientific, legal, political,and cultural activity. Exactly how this happened is a complicated,diffusestorythattakesplaceonmanydifferentstagesatroughlythe

10

sametime,overaspanoftimemeasuredindecades.We need not, however, labor under the delusion that

“heterosexual”becamesuchaculture-transformingsuccessbecauseitrepresented the long-awaited discovery of a vital and inescapablescientific truth. It wasn’t.As we shall see, the original creation of“heterosexual”and“homosexual”hadnothingtodowithscientistsorscienceatall.Nordidithaveanythingtodowithbiologyormedicine.“Heterosexual” (and “homosexual”) originated in a quasi-legalcontext, a term of art designed to argue a philosophical point oflegislature.

Perhapsthisshouldnotsurpriseus.Indeed,itcanbearguedthatthebiomedical business of sexuality has nothing to do with sexualorientationor sexual identity anyway.Thematerials andphysiologyof sexual activities are, on a strictly mechanical level, a separateproblemfromthesubjectivemechanicsofattractionordesire,asrape—something that can and does happen to people without regard tobiological sex, age, condition, or consent—attests with such brutalefficiency. Separate from human sexual orientation or identity in adifferent way are the chemistry and alchemy of human conception,whichcan,afterall, takeplaceinapetridish.Thereis,biomedicallyspeaking,nothingaboutwhathumanbeingsdosexuallythatrequiresthat something like what we now think of as “sexual orientation”exists. If therewere,and theattributewenowcall “heterosexuality”were a prerequisite for people to engage in sex acts or procreate,chances are excellent that we would not have waited until the latenineteenthcenturytofigureoutthatitwasthere.

“Heterosexual” became a success, in otherwords, not because itrepresented a new scientific verity or capital-T Truth. It succeededbecause it wasuseful.At a timewhenmoral authoritywas shiftingfrom religion to the secular society at a precipitous pace,“heterosexual” offered a way to dress old religious priorities inimmaculatewhitecoatsthatlookedjustliketheoneswornamongthe

11

newpowerhierarchyof scientists.Atahistoricalmomentwhen thewatersofanxietyaboutfamily,nation,class,gender,andempirewereataratherhystericalhigh,“heterosexual”seemedtoofferadry,firmplace for authority to stand. This new concept, gussied up in amangled mix of impressive-sounding dead languages,[3] gave oldorthodoxies a new and vibrant lease on life by suggesting, inauthoritative tones, that science had effectively pronounced themnatural,inevitable,andinnate.

What does all this have to do with me, my partner, and theunanswered question of which multiple-choice box I should tick?Plenty.Thehistoryof“theheterosexual”lurksunexaminednotjustinour beliefs about our inmost private selves, but also in our beliefsabout our bodies, our social interactions, our romances, our familylives,thewayweraiseourchildren,and,ofcourse,inoursexlives.Virtuallyeveryonealivetoday,especiallyinthedevelopedworld,haslived their entire lives in a culture of sexuality that assumes that“heterosexual”and “homosexual” are objectively real elements ofnature.

As a result of this pervasiveness, heterosexuality is like air, allaroundusandyetinvisible.Butasweallknow,thefactthatwecanseethroughairdoesn’tmeanitcan’texertforce,pushthingsaround,andcreatefriction.Intheprocessofaskingquestionsaboutmyownlife,Ihavehadtolearntothinkaboutheterosexualitylikeanaircraftpilotthinksabouttheair:assomethingwithareal,tangiblepresence,somethingthatisnotonlycapableofbutisconstantlyintheprocessofinfluencingifnotdictatingthoughts,actions,andreactions.IfI,orany of us, are to be able to decide whether or not we or ourrelationshipsqualifyas“heterosexual,” itbehoovesus tounderstandwhat that means. This history represents the attempt to begin tocomprehendwhatexactlythisinvisiblewindis,whereitcomesfrom,whatit’smadeof,andwhereitmightbepushingyouandmeandallofus.

12

For something that has such a monolithic aura of inevitability andauthorityabout it, itoftenseemsthatwehaveadifficult timesayingfor sure exactly what, and who, is heterosexual. Recently we havewitnessed a wave of loudly, politically heterosexual Larry Craigs,MarkFoleys,andBobAllensallneck-deepinscandaloversecretivesame-sexliaisons.In2004,thephrase“onthedownlow”enteredthenationalvocabularythankstoOprahWinfrey’sbullypulpit,instantlyfamiliarizingandfrighteningagenerationwiththephenomenonoftheheterosexuallyidentifiedmarriedmanwhohassurreptitioussexwithothermen.

This shouldn’t have shocked anyone, really. We’ve known fullwell sinceKinsey that a largeminority—survey numbers vary, butKinseyclaimed37percent,andothersurveyshaveagreedthatitisatleastthathigh—ofmenhaveatleastonesame-sexsexualexperiencein their lives.Andeven thisshouldhavebeenpredictable,given thevastevidencefromcenturiespastofmarriedmenwhowereknowntoenjoy sexual liaisons with other men. Indeed, they were oftenpunishedforit,whichishowweknow.

Therehave,inotherwords,beenhundredsofthousands,probablymillionsofmarriedmenwhose intimate livescouldbecharacterizedas simultaneously straight and not. The question is, Are thesehusbandsheterosexual?Andhowdowedecide?

Theanswer,ofcourse,dependsonwhereyoudrawyourlines.Inturn, where we draw the lines is not a legal question or a medicalquestionorascientificquestionorevenamoralquestion.It’sasocialquestion. There is no ultimate high council in charge ofheterosexuality, not even anAcadémie française whose uniformedexpertsdetermineitsofficialusagesandrules.NoactofCongressorParliamentexistsanywhere thatdefinesexactlywhatheterosexualityisor regulatesexactlyhowit is tobeenacted.On thesubjectof theparameters and qualifications of straightness, the InternationalStandards Organization has been conspicuously silent. Whatheterosexuality“is”isnothandeddowntousfromonhigh,anditisfarfromconcreteormonolithic.

Historically, what heterosexuality “is” has been a synonym for

13

“sexuallynormal.”Earlyinthehistoryoftheterm,itwasevenusedinterchangeably with the term “normal-sexual.”And there, as theysay,istherub.“Normal”isnotamodeofeternaltruth;it’sawaytodescribecommonnessandconformitywithexpectations.Butwhatismostcommonandexpected,intermsofoursexuallivesoranyotheraspectofthehumancondition,doesnotalwaysremainthesame.

Sexualexpectationsandbehaviors,likeallothersocialexpectationsand behaviors, change over time.Within livingmemory there havebeenmassiveshiftsonquestionslikewhetherwomenweresupposedtofeelsexualdesireorhaveorgasms,whethersexoutsideofmarriagecouldeverbeopenlyacceptable,andthepermissibilityanddesirabilityof sex acts other than penis-in-vagina intercourse. Casting furtherbackintime,historianshavetrackedmajorshifts inotheraspectsofwhatwas considered commonor “normal”in sexand relationships:Wasmarriage ideally an emotional relationship, or an economic andpragmatic one?Was romantic love desirable, and did it even reallyexist? Should young people choose their own spouses, or shouldmarriagepartnersbeselectedbyfamilyandfriends?Evenassumingthat we speak only of interactions and relationships betweenmalesand females, these relationships have simply not always been thesame,norhavethepeopleparticipatinginthembeenexpectedtodo,think, feel, or experience the same sorts of things.What “normal–sexual”is,aboveanythingelse,isrelative.

Asimilarsituationholdsinregardtothebeliefsthatareheldaboutwhy it should be that women feel desire for men and vice versa.Beyond the old tired tug-of-war over nature and nurture, there arenumerousothercontestantsvyingforprideofplaceasbeingTheOneTrue Reason that men and women want anything to do with oneanother in the first place. The religious often make claims thatdifferent-sex attractions are “God-given,” others that they are“universal.” With an eye to sexual dimorphism, some deterministsannounce that an interest in a different-sex sexual partner is“biological.”Dozens of scientists and pseudoscientists in dozens offields have hurried to supply their own, ever more specialized,hypotheses. The cacophony of opinion on this does not appear to

14

have reduced anyone’s faith that there must, inevitably, be a rightanswer to be found.Having decided that heterosexuality exists,wemaintainacorrespondinglyunshakablefaiththatitexistsforareason.Hardlyanyoneseemstonoticeorcarethatwegobackandforth,andthenbackandforthsomemore,aboutwhatthatreasonmightbe.

Nor do we seem to achieve consensus on where to placeheterosexuality’s limits, or even how best to police them. Often,pointsofdamageordestruction—theplaceswhere a thingbecomesnotthis butthat—are useful places to look for the boundaries thatlimn definitions. Not here.At various times and in various places,peoplehavebelievedthatheterosexuality(ornormal-sexuality)couldbe destroyed by, among other things, becoming a Catholic monk,readingnovels,notmovingyourbowelsoftenenough,cross-dressing(includingwomenwearing pants), toomuch education, not enoughreligion,divorce, improperejaculation,masturbation, theabolitionofslavery, women’s working for pay, and too much leisure time foranyone.

Even if we are not inclined to paranoia about heterosexuality’spotentialdestructionbytheliterary,theconstipated,andtheapostate,we still have to reckon with situational homosexuality. Sometimes,eventhemostdevoutlyheterosexualfindthemselvesincircumstanceswheretheirnormalpatternofbeingsexuallyinterestedindifferent-sexpartners seems togo rightout thewindow.Asunnumberedsailors,prisoners,andboarding-schoolboyshavedemonstrated,whetheronebehaves heterosexually or homosexually sometimes seems like littlemorethanamatterofcircumstance.Doestheexperienceofsituationalhomosexuality fundamentally change whether a person isheterosexualor“normal-sexual”?Unsurprisingly,theanswersareallover the map, as are the explanations for why a phenomenon likesituationalhomosexualityshouldexistinthefirstplace.

Despite the fact thatmostofususe the term“heterosexual”withenormous (and cavalier!) certainty, there seems to be no aspect of“heterosexual” for which a truly iron-clad definition has beenestablished.Thereseemstobegeneralagreementthat“heterosexual”has to do withmen and women and the approved sorts of sexual,

15

emotional,social,familial,andeconomicattractionsandactivitiesthatmightgoonbetweenthem,but theoverallpictureisambiguousandthedetailschangedependingonwhoyouaskandwhenintimeyoulook.ThereisaHeisenbergianqualityaboutdefining“heterosexual”:themorepreciselythetermisbeingdefined,themorelikelyitisthatthetermisonlybeingdefinedbythelightsofasinglemomentintimeandspace.

Similarly telling in their grand and vexing ambiguities are twoother things we inevitably talk about when we talk aboutheterosexuality:genderandsex,bothinthesenseof“havingsex”andintermsofbiology.

“To have sex” can mean lots of things. It might mean “to be acreaturewithabiologicalsex.”Oritcouldmean“tobegendered,”asin“androgynousfashions,”“malepipefittings,”“chickflicks.”Itcanmeanhavingalibido,inthesenseof“oversexed”or“undersexed,”orsimplyhavinggenitals,aswhenwerefertothevulvaandallitspartsas“awoman’ssex.”Colloquially,wemostoftenuse it tomean“toengage in sexual activity,” but what this in turn denotes is alas farfromclear.Itcouldsimplymean“toengageineroticactivity,”butitcould as easilymean“to engage inpenis-in-vaginapenetration,” “toattempt to procreate,” or “to engage in erotic activity leading toorgasm.”Any,orindeedall,ofthesethingscouldbetrueandrelevantwhentalkingaboutheterosexuality.Thisiswhywecan’tassumethat“having sex” onlymeans one thing, even ifwe’re operating on theassumption thatwe’re talkingaboutsexualactivitybetweenpartnersofdifferentbiologicalsexes.Onlyoneofthemanysexactsofwhichourspeciesiscapable,afterall,requiresthesimultaneousengagementofbothapenisandavagina.

Whenitcomesto“sex,”contextisking:itsthreetinyletterswearanawfullotofhats.Thisistrueevenwithinfairlynarrowandstrict-seemingfields,suchasbiology.Thethingwecall“biologicalsex”isthe diagnosis of physical sexmade according to the observation ofbodily characteristics, and also the constellation of bodilycharacteristicsthatareobservedtomakethatdiagnosis.ThelateJohnsHopkinssexologistJohnMoneyidentifiedsevendifferentcriteriafor

16

a diagnosis of biological sex in humans, including genetic orchromosomalsex,internalanatomy,externalanatomy,sexhormones,and the type of gonads an individual possesses. This is extremelyuseful, as it emphasizes the very real possibility that in any givenindividual, these criteria will not all necessarily point to the samediagnosis.Sexchromosomeanomalies,“ambiguous”genitaliathatinsome way or other blur the difference between male- and female-typicalgenitals,hormonelevelsthatarefarfromtextbook,andgonadsthat are somewhere between ovary and testis are all fairly commonandnaturallyoccurring.

There is little agreement, however, about how these atypicalbiologies should be identified.Nor is there consensus on how theymightbestfitin,sociallyandpsychologically,toabinarysystemthattraditionally has no space for them.Attempts to force people withnonbinarybiologytofitintothebinarymoldofmaleandfemalehavehadhighlymixedresultsandhavecreatedenormouscontroversy,notleastforsexologistslikeJohnMoney.[4]Theusualbiological sexesrecognizedbybiomedicalsciencearefemale,male,and,forconditionslike my partner’s XXY chromosomes, intersex. But, as should beclearfromthefactthatmypartner’sbody,neithermalenorfemaleinsomanymajorbiologicalways,wasuncontroversiallydiagnosedasmalewhenhewasborn,eventheselinesarefrequentlyblurry.

One reason that biological sexmay not be as clear-cut as itmayseemitshouldbeisthatbiologycanchange.Somechangesinsexualbiologyarespontaneous,suchasejacularche(theonsetoftheabilitytoejaculate)ormenopause(thecessationoftheabilitytomenstruate).Others are induced, such as hysterectomy, which is a surgeryremoving the uterus (andoften ovaries aswell).Not coincidentally,hysterectomymayalsopresentanincidenceofinducedmenopauseifperformedonapremenopausalwoman.

Biologicalandbodilychangesmay—ormaynot—affecthowwediagnose or think of a person’s biological sex. We don’t think ofwomen as no longer being women just because they havehysterectomies. A man who has his testicles surgically removedbecauseoftesticularcancerisstillconsideredmale(andwilllikelybe

17

firmly reassured of this by his doctors). On the other hand, if thesamesurgeries—removaloftheuterus/ovariesortestes—aredoneaspart of sex reassignment, then these biological changes suddenlybecomefundamentalintermsofgivingabasistoadiagnosisofanewsex. The organs removed may be biologically identical, but thesurgeries’effectson“biologicalsex”canbelightyearsapart.Biologyisascience,butitdoesnotexistinavacuum.

Gender,or“socialsex,”isalasnolesscomplex.Genderreferstoallthe manifestations of masculinity or femininity that are notimmediately, demonstrably biological. These include mannerisms,conventionsofdressandgrooming,socialroles,speechpatterns,andmuchmore.Ausefulwaytothinkaboutitisthatwe havebiologicalsex—it is inherently present in our physical bodies—but wedogender.

Beliefs about the relationship between biological sex and genderare varied and complex; our understanding of it is decidedlyincomplete. Formost of our past, people did not typically perceiveanydifferencebetweensexandgenderatall.Thecontentionwasthatbiological sex created gender because gender was essentiallybiological—or to put it another way, there was some “essence”associatedwithbeingbiologicallyfemalethatgeneratedcharacteristicswecallfemininity,andsome“essence”ofmalenessthatdidthesamewithregardtomasculinity.Untilquiterecentlythiswasamainstream,commonly accepted view. In the past century or so, however, thegender essentialism model has been heavily criticized and largelydisproven.Whether or not gender is influenced by biology, and towhatdegreeifso,isnowthesubjectofintensescientificdebate.

The role of gender socialization, on the other hand, isuncontroversialandcanbeeasilyobserved.Webeginteachinggenderbeginningatbirth,forinstancebyswaddlingbabyboysinbluewhilegirlsaregivenpink,byadorningbabygirlswithfrillsandlacewhilebabyboysaredressedinlessornamented,moreutilitarianclothes.In

18

theseand innumerableotherways,people learnhowto“dogender”accordingtotheexpectationsoftheculturesandsubculturesinwhichtheylive.Forthemostpartwearesocializedtodogendersothatweare “gender typical” or “cisgendered,”meaning that thewaywe dogendermatchesupwithourculture’sexpectationsofwhatsomeoneof our biological sex is supposed to be like: masculine males andfeminine females. But gender is not uniform. “Masculine” and“feminine” can be highly nuanced, with different styles that makesocial statements about a person’s socioeconomic class, ethnicity,religion, education, subcultures, and aesthetics. This is all themorerelevant because people often don’t perceive themselves as doinggender consciously. Many people believe that their masculinity orfemininity,andthewaystheyexpressit,is“justwhotheyare.”

Genderisindeedpartofhowweexpressourpersonalities.Itisn’tas automatic or as inevitable as it may feel. One way we can seegenderasamodeofself-expressioninactionisinthewaysthatstylesofgenderperformancechangeover timeand fromone subgroupofpeopletothenext.Masculinitydoesnotlook,sound,dress,oractthesame for a rapper as for an Orthodox Jewish rabbinical student; aCalifornia surfer chickdoes femininityverydifferently fromaNewYorkCitylady-who-lunches.Atthesametime,thesewaysofdoinggender can be changed . . . and learned.A California surfer chickcouldlearnhowtodofemininityinwaysthatwouldletherfitrightinatNewYork’stoniesttables,ifshewantedto.

Styles of doing gender are mixable and mutable, and so aregenders themselves.Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny are notmutuallyexclusivecharacteristics.Beingbig,burly,andbeardedisnobarrier, for one of my friends, to also being a tender and caringregistered nurse. Being petite and pretty doesn’t exclude DanicaPatrickfrombeingaferociouslyaggressiverace-cardriver.Therearenosuchthingsas“opposite”genders,anymorethanastrawberryisthe“opposite”ofaplum.Theyaremerelydifferent.Describinganytwosexesorgendersas“opposite”isnotfact;itismerelyanoutdatedandinaccuratecustom.

Whetherornotweareawareof it, thewayswedogenderarea

19

primary mode of self-expression and social signaling. Our genderperformancetellsotherpeopleagreatdealnotjustaboutwhoweare,butwhowewantotherpeopletoperceiveustobe.Thisisparticularlyrelevant because gender is so much a matter of performance, andbecause it is so separable frombiology.A person’s gendermay ormaynothaveaconventionalrelationshiptohisorherbiology.Thereis,afterall,noreasonithasto.

Forall thesereasons,wehave to lookcarefullyatwhoandwhatwe’re talking about when we discuss heterosexuality.Heterosexuality, as we understand it, is rooted in relationshipsbetween people of particular sexes, genders, and biologies.Yet sexandgenderandbiologyencompassawidevarietyofthings.Whenwetakeall this intoaccount, it becomes somewhat easier tounderstandjustwhyandhowithascome topass thatwedon’t, in fact,haveacompleteandvaliduniversaldefinitionfor“heterosexual.”

Would that defining “heterosexual” were as simple a problem asdefining a particular type of sexual desire or activity.Alas, humansexual interests and behaviors are every bit as ambiguous andcomplicatedasbiologyandgender.Sciencehasnotbeenable,atthispoint, tosupplyadefinitiveanswertothequestionofwhyandhowour sexual interests and desires arise. What the available evidencesuggestsisthatsexualdesiresarepartlyintrinsictotheindividualandpartly learned or acquired from culture. How intrinsic and learneddesiresrelatetooneanother,however,andtheactualmechanismsthatcause a givenperson to desire one thingor personbut not another,remainanuttermystery.

Manyof the things thatpeople frequently find sexuallydesirablecanbe linked toreproductivesuccess.Clearskinandgood teetharesignsofhealth.Curvyfemalehipsareasignalofsexualmaturityandsuggest that a woman will bear children easily. But there is hugevarietyinwhatcanbefoundsexuallyappealing,andquiteabitofithasnomeaningfulbearingonreproductivesuccesswhatsoever.Long

20

lean bodies, short fleshy bodies, pale skin, dark skin, blue eyes,brown eyes, red hair, black hair, moustaches, and handswith longthin fingers all have their ardent partisans, although none of thesecharacteristicsarenecessary inorder tomakehappy,healthybabies.Why should“gentlemenprefer blondes,” as some assuredly do?Orredheads?Whyshouldwomenfindcleftchinsappealing?What’sthepercentageinbeingbesottedbyfreckles?Hardtosay.Theredoesn’tappear to be any obvious biological benefit in it.And, of course,sexualdesiresarenotlimitedtohumanbeingsortheirbodies.Historytells us that people can and sometimes do feel sexual desire for,among rather a lot of other things, shoes, urine, barnyard animals,latex rubber, and trees. The so-called “reproductive imperative,” inotherwords,isnotnecessarilywhatisdrivingthebuswhenitcomestoourexperiencesofsexualdesire,notevenwhenwhatwedesireisahumanbeingofadifferentbiologicalsexthanourselves.

The staggering variety of things we can and do desire is onlyexceeded by the number of things we do with them. How do wedefine a sexual activity as being a sexual activity, andwhat does itmeantoengageinone?Historically, thecriteriaforwhatconstituted“sexual activity” formost scientific purposes have been remarkablynarrow, confined solely to the act of penis-in-vagina intercourse.PhilosopherMarilynFrye, ina1988essayentitled“Lesbian‘Sex,’”noted that in most sexological research, this was additionallynarrowedtodescribeonlytheexperiencesofmales.Whatthismeansisthatformanydecades,forthepurposesofbiomedicalscience,thesex act of record consisted of the insertion of an erect penis into avagina, the thrusting of that penis within the vagina, and theejaculation of semen from the penis followed by withdrawing thepenisfromthevagina.

You’d never know it from the insert-thrust-squirt-removetrajectory that serves as a description of this activity, but penis-in-vagina intercourse actually involves two people. Their genitals areverydifferent, theyengageindifferentphysicalactivitiesduringthistypeofintercourse,andtheyhavedifferentsensoryexperiencesofit.Neitherwould you guess that human sexual activity includedmany

21

other options, performable by many different combinations ofparticipants of various biological sexes. This has been a very realproblem in both the study and the popular discussion of sexualactivity:asinglelopsidedmodelofasingleactivityisheldupnotjustasthebaselinefromwhichallelsedeparts,butasthealphaandomegaofhumansexualbehavior.Theresultingpicturewehavedevelopedofsexuality and its workings has historically been severely biased.Surely if we are trying to understandjust what sexual activity andheterosexualityhavetodowithoneanother,andhowthatrelationshipmightwork,itisincumbentuponuslikewisetoconsiderthat“sexualactivity”doesn’t look thesame foreveryone.AsLisaDiamondandMichaelBaileyhavebeguntoargue,thenarrowlymale-orientedfocusofsomuchsexologicalresearchmeansthatwhenitcomestosexualorientation,modelsdevelopedonthebasisofmale-orientedresearchmight not even be appropriate tools to use to help figure out howsexuality works for women.[5] The implications, insofar as theapplicability of our current systemof understanding and classifyingsexuality,arestaggering.

Another way in which our understanding-sexuality toolbox isoften lacking concerns the variety of functions that sexual activityfulfills. People often attempt to justify the heterosexual/homosexualschemeon the basis of the fact thatwhile different-sex couples canengage in reproductive sex, same-sex couples cannot. Butreproductionishardlytheonlyreasondifferent-sexcouplesengageinsexualactivity.Itcannotbe.Forpurelymechanicalreasons—becausea specific sexual act must be performed by two fertile people ofdifferentbiological sexesat the right timeof themenstrualcycle forconception toevenbepossible—procreativesexualactivitycanonlypossibly account for a small subset of all sexual activity betweenwomenandmen.

Intruth,sexualactivityissocialactivity.Ourcultureisoftenloathtorecognizethis,althoughwedoembracetheideathatsexualactivitycan be about the social functions of expressing affection andintensifyingsocialandemotionalbonds.Indeed,manypeoplebelievethatsexisonlyjustifiedbylove.Butsexualactivityhasmanyother

22

socialrolestoplay.Itcanbeareward,amodeofexchange,awaytoaffirm loyalty,or anappeasement. It canbe a commodity, awayofprovidingreassurance,andariteofpassage.Asasourceofpleasureithasfewequals.It’sanage-oldmeansofassertingdominanceandavisceral mode by which to demonstrate submission. It canfurthermore be ameans of gaining control, a way to humiliate andviolate,andawaytopunish.Andanygivensexact,nomatterwhoengages in it, can and often will involve more than one of thesedynamics.

Thesubjectiveexperienceoftheeroticandofpleasureis,perhapsunsurprisingly, also enormously variable. It’s not just that desiresdiffer fromoneperson to thenext,or thatsomesexualepisodesaretranscendent and others are only so-so, but that identical objects oractions can provoke entirely different reactions depending oncircumstances.Noteverything that ispotentiallydesirable isactuallydesirable.Not all “sex” is sexy.A loverwe once found irresistiblebecomesrepulsiveafteranastybreakup.Asexactweenjoyedwithone partnermay just not do it for uswhenwe try it with another.Somearguethatitmaynotevenbeappropriatetocallsomeexamplesof“sexualacts”—rape,forexample—sexualatall.

All of this brings us back around to the issue of heterosexualityandwhatwemusttakeintoaccountifwearegoingtoilluminateitinanyway.Humansexuality,asshouldbeclearbynow,encompassesmuch more than the ways that the biological sex(es) or socialgender(s) of the people we fancy compare to our own.Whomwechoose as erotic-activity partners is just one aspect of what we dosexually.Wordslike“heterosexual”mayhintat,butdonotaccuratelydenote, all the complexities (or vagaries, or ambiguities) of anindividual’sactuallivedexperienceofsexuality.

Because there is so much inbuilt variability where sexuality isconcerned, there are five caveats worth keeping in mind for anyexplorationof sexualorientation.First, thebiological sex and socialgenderofaprospectivepartnerareonlytwoofmanycharacteristicsinwhich an individual may take a sexual interest, and their relativeimportanceissubjectiveandvariable.Second,sexualdesire(whatwe

23

likeorwant) and sexualbehavior (whatweactuallydo) arenot thesamething,andmayormaynotberelated.Third,sexualand/oreroticactivitytakeonconsiderablymoreformsthanwemaybepersonallyaccustomedtorecognize,andcertainlymoreformsexistoverallthanaresanctionedbyanygivenculture.Fourth,wehavetorememberthatall sexual activity is social activity,while only a small subset of allsexual activity is also reproductive activity. This means that itbehooves us to think about sexual activity first as social, and onlyconsideritas(potentially)reproductivewhenitactuallyis.Andlast,we must bear in mind that the relationships between perception,thought, emotion, andbehavior are neither automatic nor consistent.Inmanycases theyaredemonstrablyaffectedordirectedbycultureandsocialization.Wedon’tjustwantwhatwewantbecausewewantit;wewantwhatwewantbecausethat’swhatwe’velearnedtowant.

Withthisinmind,wecanproceedtotakealookatthehistoryofheterosexuality.Asweshould,becausewhetherwelikeitornot,theideaofheterosexualityisembeddedineachofus,inouractionsandreactions,ouremotionalresponses,andourintellectualassertions.Wecansee itsdistinctive imprint in the thingswebelieveabout love, inthe ways we pursue pleasure, in the things we expect from ourrelationships, our work, our government, and our genitals. Thisconceptwecall“heterosexuality”doesn’t justshapeoursex lives; itshapesthewaysweunderstandtheworldtoworkand,consequently,theways itdoes.Heterosexuality reaches too farbeyond themerelypersonal, and in toomany profound and pervasiveways, for us towrite it off as a simplematter of biology or nature or evenDivineplan. It cannot be reduced to economics, the search for pleasure, oreventotruelove.Itcertainlycannotbereducedtoafewcheckboxesonaclinicform.Allofthesethingsmayplayapartinwhatwethinkofwhenwethinkaboutheterosexuality,butnoneofthesethingsareheterosexuality.

24

CHAPTERONE

TheLoveThatCouldNotSpeakItsName

One of the “top ten new species” of 2007, according to theInternational Institute for Species Exploration at Arizona StateUniversity,wasafishbythedelightfulnameofElectroluxaddisoni.ButwasElectroluxactuallynew?TheornatesleeperraywasfamiliartothescubadiversandsnorkelerswhoweresometimesgreetedbyitastheyswamitshomewatersofftheSouthAfricancoast.Doubtlesslocalfishermenhadknownaboutitevenlonger.Butinanothersense,Electrolux was genuinely novel. It became “new” on the day abiologistconfirmedthatithadn’tpreviouslybeendocumented,gaveita name, and triumphantly added it to the rosters of official, openlyshared,systemichumanknowledge.

As the case ofElectrolux demonstrates, there is a differencebetween simplybeing andbeing known. No one would attempt toargue that this fishhadnoexistenceprior to the time itwasgivenascientific name. Yet suddenly, in 2007, it was “new.” Writtendocumentation of a particular kind, by an authority figure of aparticularkind,waswhatturnedElectroluxaddisonifromathingthatjustwas,whetheranyoneknewabout itornot, intoa thingthatwasknown.

In the nineteenth century, a similar thing happened toheterosexuals.Priorto1868,therewerenoheterosexuals.Therewereno homosexuals either, for thatmatter. Formost of human history,lovemighthavebeenromanticorplatonic,brotherlyormaternal,eroso ragape, but it was definitively not heterosexual or homosexual,straightorgay.Thenamesdidnotexist,nordid thecategories theynow describe. In the mid-nineteenth century, Western people ingeneralwereonlybeginningtothinkorspeakintermsoftherebeing

25

different types of human beings who were differentiated from oneanotherbythekindsofloveorsexualdesiretheyexperienced.[1]

Specificsexualbehaviors,tobesure,werenamed,categorized,andjudged. This was nothing new. They had been for more than athousand years. The most famous example of this is the term“sodomy.”Asatermandanidea,ifnotasapractice,“sodomy”arosefromtheCatholicChurch,whichformuchofWesternhistorywasthehighestauthorityonmattersofbehaviorandmorals(amongratheralot else) in the West. The Catholic Church has historicallydisapproved,onprinciple,ofallsexualactivitythatisnotpotentiallyprocreative.Thisisthebroadestdefinitionof“sodomy.”

Sodomywassodomynomatterwhomitinvolved.Sodomycouldtake place between aman and awoman, twomen, twowomen, orsomeothercombinationofparticipants.A“sodomite”wasnotakindofpersonbutapersonwhocommittedaparticulartypeofsin.Inthesame way that a usurer committed the act of moneylending or amurderercommittedtheactofkilling,asodomitecommittedtheactofsodomy.Itwasnotanidentitylabelbutarapsheet.

PartoftheCatholicunderstandingof“sodomy”wasanawarenessthat sexual sinwas something that couldhappen to anyone.Simplyfeelingdesireputoneatrisk.Sexualmisbehaviorwasnotamarkerofsome sort of constitutional difference but merely evidence oftemptationunsuccessfullyresisted.

This sensibility is a large part of why, prior to the nineteenthcentury,Western culture did not include the concept that all peopleweresplitintotwosexualcamps.Itisalsowhytheredoesnotseemtohave beenmuch sense, prior to the eighteenth century, of peoplethinking in terms of a hierarchy of sexual “types.” The tendencyinstead was to think in terms of people who, openly or covertly,occasionallyorhabitually,engagedinavarietyofsexualacts.Someofthoseactsweremoresinfulthanothers.Theonlysexactthatwasnot considered sinful in the eyes of the Catholic Church waspotentially procreativepenis-in-vagina intercourse performed withinthecontextofavalidmarriage,andeventhathadtobeperformedinparticularwaysandlimitedtospecifictimes.

26

Muchhaschanged.Wearenowsousedtothinkingofsexualityintermsoforientationsandidentities,“deviant”versus“normal,”thatithardly occurs to us that theremight beworkable alternatives to ourcustomarywaysofthinking.Buthistoryshowsthatthereareactuallymany such alternatives. The desire for sexual activity has beenthoughtabout,asinclassicCatholicdogma,asamanifestationoftheunrulyappetitesoftheearthlybody,possiblygoadedonbyforcesofevil.Butthedesireforsexualactivityhasalsobeenimaginedsimplyasabiologicalfunction,likeeatingorelimination,acommonconceptin both Classical thought and in the neoclassical thought of theintellectualeighteenthcentury.

Ourmodernhabitof interpretingsexualdesireasamanifestationof our identities, part and parcel of our individual human selves, ismerely one more option. But since the nineteenth century, this hasbeen the option our culture has chosen more than any other. AsFrenchphilosopherMichelFoucaultfamouslyputitinhisHistoryofSexuality,aparticularsexualtypebecame“apersonage,apast,acasehistory,andachildhood,inadditiontobeingatypeoflife,alifeform,and a morphology. . . . It was consubstantial with him, less as ahabitual sin thanasasingularnature.”This is theviewuponwhichtheexistenceof“heterosexual”depends.

Thiswasnotanovernightshiftbutaprocess.Althoughithaditsroots in earlier changes in philosophy and science and law, thenineteenthcenturybecametheerainwhichthedecisiveshiftoccurred.Bytheendof thenineteenthcentury,Westernculturehadlearnedtoviewsexualdesireandactivitynotasaunifiedfieldonitsown,butasa collectionof specific anddistinctivedesires and activities, eachofwhichhadaroletoplayinhelpingtodefineaspecificanddistinctivesubtypeofhumanbeing.Manydifferentdesiresandactsweregivenofficial names in this period, making the momentous shift frommerelybeing tobeingknown.Asthesedesiresandactsweredefinedandcharacterizedandwrittendownintherightauthoritativewaysbytherightauthoritativepeople,theywereusedtohelpcreateanothersetof known entities: sexual types. Of these, the most powerful andimportant,andcertainly themostenduringandculture-altering,were

27

“homosexual”and“heterosexual.”Because the terms have become ubiquitous, we forget that

“homosexual”and“heterosexual”comefromthisveryparticulartimeandplace.Everyerahas itsowncatchphrases andneologisms.Ourworldisnotstatic,andasnewideasandobjectsentertheculturesodo new words and phrases, even as old ways of thinking andoutmodedvocabularyfade.Wehappilyandknowledgeablychataboutcomputer geeks and geneticists, but no longer about alchemists ornaturalphilosophers.Wewouldconsider it ratherstilted tospeakofbluestockings, jesters, and foundlings, butwe are quite comfortablespeakingofwomen intellectuals, comedians, andchildrenwhohavebeenputup foradoption.Suchchanges in languagecanconvey farmorethanjustdictionarymeanings.Forinstance,“Negro,”“colored,”“black,” “African American,” and “person of color” could alltechnically be used to refer to the same person. But their historicalfreightgiveseachof thesewordsdifferentassociations,somuchsothatwehavestrongpreferencesaboutwhichoneswewouldwillinglychoose.Wordsandthewaysweusethemarealwaysrootedintimeandinplace.

This is particularly important when we consider “heterosexual.”WhatJonathanNedKatzhascalled“theinventionofheterosexuality”took place at a specific point in history, in a unique intertwining ofhistoricalandculturalstreams.Putsimply, these termscametoexistbecauseaneedwasperceivedtoidentifypeopleasrepresentativesofgenerictypesdistinguishedonthebasisoftheirtendenciestobehavesexually in particular ways. The story of how this need arose is astory of industrialization and urbanization, the rise of the middleclasses, the complications of empire, and the scientific andphilosophical legaciesof theEnlightenment,allofwhichcontributedtocreatingaworldinwhichtheideaofatypeofhumanbeingcalled“heterosexual”madeaspecificandusefulkindofsense.

SEXANDSININTHENEWCITYIn the nineteenth century, the cities of Europe and NorthAmericabegan to swell at apreviouslyunimaginablepace.By1835London

28

reached a population of one million, while its nearest Continentalrival,Paris,hitthemillionmarkin1846.Urbangrowthtookplaceatexponential rates: New York City boasted 60,515 residents in the1800census...andawhopping3,437,202in1900.

Behind the urban explosion lay newly mechanized and rapidlygrowing industry and its rapacious appetite for laborers—not tomentionallthegoodsandservicesthataswellingpopulationrequires.Thepromiseofsteadyworkandsteadypay lured theruralworkingclassesoutofthehinterlandsbythehundredsofthousandsinatwinprocessofurbanizationandcorrespondingruralpopulationdrainthatcontinuesaroundtheworldeventoday.It isimpossibletooverstate,and nearly impossible to imagine for those of uswho have alwayslivedinaworldwithenormousindustrializedcities,howdramaticallythemodernmetropolishasalteredhumanculture.

These hugely increased, unprecedentedly dense populationstransformedurbanexperience.All sortsof commonbutunorthodoxsexual activities like prostitution, sexual violence, and same-sexeroticism seemed suddenlymore frequent, more random, andmoreoutofcontrolthantheyhadbeenwhenthecitiesandtheirpopulationswerebothmuchsmaller.Certainly,bycomparisontoruraltownsandvillages, the cities seemed like hotbeds of sexual misconduct andexcess.Italsoappearedtomanythatpeoplenotonlyengagedinmoresexualmisconduct inthecities,but that theyweremorelikelytogetawaywith it. Thiswas often true, since city populations frequentlylackedthesocialunityandinterdependenceofthesmallervillagesandtowns,makingcommunityenforcementofproperbehaviorbothlesspossible and less likely. Some rural modes of policing sexualbehavior survived in the cities, at least for awhile.The charivari, agritty mob of people banging pots and pans, tooting horns, andsinginggleefullyfilthysongsunderthewindowsofanillicitcouple,for instance, survived in both the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates until at least the First World War. But neither rowdynoisemaking nor shotgun weddings, nor even the odd spot ofvigilante justice, could conceivably address all of the sexual crimesthattookplaceinabigcity.

29

Thismight, in theory, have been a job for the police. In reality,policingasabranchofcivilservicewasstillinitsinfancy,withCityof London police chartered by statute in 1839 andNewYorkCityformingapoliceforceonlyin1845.Theresponsibilitiesandreachofcitypoliceforcestooktimetoworkthemselvesout,andthelawandthecourtswouldsimilarlyscramblefordecadestocatchupwiththeregulatoryanddisciplinaryneedsoftheswellingcities.Tothosewholivedincities—andeventothosewhoonlyheardstoriesaboutthem—the urban world was a frightening, dirty, dangerous place,especiallyfromasexualstandpoint,fullofprostitutesandpredators.

Urbansexualmisconductwastypically,ifinaccurately,blamedonthelowerclasses.Becausethefastest-growinggroupsinthenewcityweretheworkingclassandthepoor,itoftenappearedthattherisingratesofsexualmisconductreflectedthesocioeconomicclassofthesenew urbanites rather thanmerely the larger overall population. Themiddle and upper classes, who prided themselves on their moralrectitude (and had the additional advantage of enjoying all thediscretion money could buy), had no trouble ascribingdisproportionate, even innate, degeneracy to their socioeconomicinferiors.

Thiswasnotanewidea.WesternEuropehadlongheldtotheideathatallcreaturesbelongedtoagrandoverarchinghierarchy.Sincethemedievalera,acentralnotionofWesternthoughtwastheideaofthescala naturae or Great Chain of Being, the concept that all livingbeings had a place in a strict hierarchy that led inexorably upwardfromdirttoplantstoanimalstohumanstotheangelsandultimatelytoGod.Asoneascendedthisnaturalladder,oneascendedinperfection.Wealth, health, moral uprightness, and social dominance were allconsidered proofs of superiority, while inferiority betrayed itself inpoverty, sickness, immorality, and powerlessness. All men wereautomatically higher than all women, white-skinned peopleautomaticallyhigherthandark-skinned,andChristiansabovethoseofotherfaiths.TheGreatChainthusfurnishedaconceptualframeworkthatwouldbeimportantlater:theideathatinherentorquasi-inherent“imperfections,”suchasparticularsexualhabits,couldbepartofthe

30

intrinsicmakeupofwholeclassesofpeople.As the nineteenth century wore on, the Great Chain of Being

acquired a sort of slantwise sibling in evolutionary theory. CharlesDarwin himself never asserted that evolution represented the samesortofgrandladderofascendingperfection.Indeed,thefactthatthenotionofprogress towardanultimateGodlyperfectionwasentirelyexcludedfromDarwin’scharacterizationofnaturalselectionwasparto fwhat made his theories so controversial. But this did not stoppeople from applying the teleology of the Great Chain to theprinciples of natural selection and evolution. In particular, the“science”ofeugenics recasts thebasicprinciplesof theGreatChainontonaturalselectioninaparticularlypoisonousway.(EugenicsandDarwinismwererelatedinaliteralwayaswellasafigurativeone:asa field, eugenics was pioneered by Darwin’s cousin, Sir FrancisGalton.) Eugenicists believed that human evolution had a goal, andthat this goal was to produce ever better and fitter human beings.Therefore, they reasoned, a lackofmoral or physical virtuedirectlyreflected a hereditary deficit. For instance, the “moral imbecile.”“Moral imbeciles,” in the eyes of eugenicists, were simply bornwithouttheabilitytofeeloractmorally,justasanimbecile—whatwewould now call a developmentally disabled person—was bornwithouttheabilitytothinkorreasonnormally.Eugenicistssawbothkinds of imbeciles as examples of evolutionary error, and ofundesirableclutterinthegenepool.

AtthesametimeasDarwin’stheorieswereenthusiasticallyseizeduponbyeugenicists,“socialDarwinists,”andotherchampionsofthehierarchyof lifeencapsulatedin theGreatChainofBeing, theyalsohelped to facilitateawholesalequestioningof thewholenotionofafixed human hierarchy. Egalitarianism and universal human rightswere relatively new concepts at the turn of the nineteenth century,brought to the attention of most as a result of the French andAmericanrevolutionsofthelateeighteenthcentury.Atthetimeoftheriseof themonstercitiesof theWest, theseprogressive ideasbynomeansdominated the scene.The idea that birthwasworth, and thatone’s place in theGreatChainwas not really something one could

31

change, was still common even as people began to simultaneouslyentertainthenotionsthatperhapsthisshouldnotmatterandthatacivilsocietymight have an interest in behaving as if itmattered less, orperhapsnotatall.

As the cities grew, the pragmatic value of civil egalitarianismbecameincreasinglyevident.Whetheracountrywasheadedbyakingorapresident,whether itmaintaineda formalaristocracyor insistedupon equality of citizenship, the intense population pressure of thecitiesmadeitincreasinglyapparentthatthemassesrequiredsomesortof management. Merely asserting old hierarchies of class was notgoing to get the job done either, because in the new industrialeconomyhierarchiesofclasswerechanging,too.Whatwasrequiredwere systematic, reproducible, universally applicable systems forsocialmanagementthatcouldbeimplementedonalargescale.

ItisnocoincidencethatwefirstseethishappeningwithregardtosexinearlyNapoleonicFrance.Beginningasearlyas1802,whentheFrench government began regulating and registering ParisianprostitutesviatheBureaudesMoeurs(BureauofMorals)andBureauSanitaire(BureauofHealth),thepolicingofthesexualactivityofthegeneral public increasingly became a problem for the state. Manyefforts focused on specific problem behaviors like prostitution, orhealth problems like venereal diseases. In England, the infamousContagiousDiseasesActs(enactedin1864)attemptedtostemthetideof the latter by rigidly controlling the former, complete withcompulsory gynecological exams.Other early attempts atmanagingthesexualityofthemassesweremorephilosophicalinnature,suchasthecampaigntoraisetheageofconsentthatbecamesuchahot-buttonissueintheEnglish1870s.[2]

The lawwas integral to thiseffort to imposegreatercontroloverthesexualbehaviorofcitizens.Centraltothislegaleffort,inturn,wastheprocessofcreatingabodyofworkthathelpedtosupportthelawandaiditindoingitsmanagerialwork.Thenewsecularstaterequiredsecular justification for its laws, and professionals in many fieldsbegantoapplythemselvestothetaskofprovidingit.PhysicianslikeRichardvonKrafft-Ebingwoulddothisinaparticularanddistinctive

32

way. Drawing on an Enlightenment legacy of scientific naming, avariety of sexual behaviors and characteristics were suddenlymadeboth“new”and“known”thankstoKrafft-Ebing’sclassificationandassignment of scholarly names. Krafft-Ebing’s bookPsychopathiaSexualis (1886)was a pioneering, and highly problematic, index todisordersofthe“sexualinstinct”andthehumantypessubjecttothem.

Aswith theornatesleeperray thatbecameElectroluxaddisoni in2007,noneoftheactualbehaviorsKrafft-Ebingcataloguedwerenewto the annals of human experience. Krafft-Ebing no more“discovered” thevarious sexualpeccadilloesof thehuman race thanhe could’ve “discovered” his own grandfather. But he did apply aformal taxonomy to the sexual actions and actors he described.Although hewas not the onewho coined theword, his taxonomicvocabularyalsoincludedtheword“heterosexual,”itsfirstadoptioninthemedicalliterature.

WHAT’SINANAMENaming and cataloging can be real and powerful science. They canalso be real and powerful culturalmagic. This is preciselywhywehavetobewaryofwhoisinchargeofnamingandcatalogingthings,whattheirmotivationsareindoingso,andhowtheygoaboutdoingit.Iftherightpersonwiththerightqualificationsnamesathingoraphenomenonintherightway,chancesareexcellentthatotherpeoplewill accept unquestioningly that that thing or phenomenon is a realscientific(whichistosayobjectiveandmaterial)entity.Bythemid-nineteenthcentury,whentheword“heterosexual”wasfirstcoined—in a letter written May 6, 1868, by a writer named Karl MariaKertbeny—scientificnamingwasaritualthathadtheweightofmorethan a hundred years of authority behind it. But the process ofscientificnamingwasnot alwaysasobjective,or asmaterial, asweoftensuppose.

Scienceisatrootasocialeffort.Asadiscipline,materialscience—whetherphysicalorbiological—isacollectiveeffortcarriedoutbyalarge,looselyaffiliatedgroupofpeopleforthegreatergood,anditissubjecttoacertainamountofhumanbiasnomatterwhatwedo.We

33

aresimplynotcapableofomniscience,andsowemustchoosewhatwe will pay attention to at any given instant, what qualities of anobjectwewill decide are important enough toobserve, characterize,andrecord.Thisaloneisenoughtoshowourhand.

Thehistoryoftaxonomybearsthisouttoadegreethatisfranklyastonishing,andwhichhintsatsomeofthehumanprejudicetocomelater in the cataloging and naming of human sexuality. CarolusLinnaeus, the brilliant Swedish father of scientific naming and self-anointed “prince of botanists,” was an ardently Christian academicwhowrotelengthycompendiumsinscholarlyLatin.Hewasalsoabitof a sexual obsessive. Once Linnaeus had finished with them, allplantsknown tohimhadbeenclassedaccording to thenumberandfunctionof theirsexorgans,andmanyof themhadbeennamedforgenitals as well.With a decided knack for the unsavory image, henamed a stinkhorn fungusPhallus daemonicum, and a perfectlyinnocuousNorthAmericanshrubcommonlycalledtheJamaicacaperbecameCapparis cynophallophora—the caper that bears a dog’spenis. Even during his lifetime,Linnaeus’s relentless sexualizing ofhis subject matter often raised critical eyebrows and occasionallyinspiredtiradesinprint.Linnaeus,inturn,immortalizedhiscriticsbynaminguglyornoxiousplantsafterthem.ThemostfamousexampleofthisistheunattractivelittlerelativeoftheastercalledSiegesbeckia,named for Johann Siegesbeck, an academic who took strongexceptiontothe“loathsomeharlotry”ofLinnaeus’swork.

Wecanperhapsunderstandwhyothersmight’vebeen frustrated.Linnaeus’s system was more than a little offbeat and decidedlyarbitrary in what it chose to describe: thenuptiae plantarum, ormarriagesofplants.Hedidnotmeanthisasaeuphemism.Aworldofhumansocialandsexualexpectationswasencodedinhiscategories.Monandria were one-husbanded plants, tidilymonogamous, with asinglepistil(femalesexorgan)andasinglestamen(malesexorgan)inagivenflower.Dodecandria,ontheotherhand,hadadisturbinglynumeroustwelve“husbands”perbloom.Linnaeus’sassumptionwasthatallplants“married.”Hedidnotpresumethatplantslikemosses,whose “weddings” he could not observe, were simply not the

34

“marrying type”; it would take later observers to realize that manymosses actually reproduce asexually. Linnaeus could not bear thethoughtofitandsoconsignedthemtotheclassofcryptogamia,thosewhomarriedinsecret.

Linnaeusandhissex-obsessedworkwouldalmostbelaughableifthey hadn’t been so influential.Linnaeus’s taxonomic principles—ifnotnecessarilyhissexualfocusinapplyingthem—becamethebasisfor a breathtakingly prolific discipline. The 1735 first edition ofLinnaeus’sSystema Naturae was a mere eleven pages, but by thethirteenthandlasteditionin1767,thebookhadgrowntooverthreethousand pages. (Currently, the Species 2000 initiative databaseproject based at University of Reading is working toward a validchecklistofallknownspeciesoforganism,andtheirrollsincluded,asof2009,morethanonemillionspecies.)

The cataloging of known things, and the establishment of namesforthosethings,remainsacentralprojectofscience.Thefactthatitisa profoundly human endeavor, saturated with human values andprejudices,is one of science’s open secrets, betrayed in the verylanguagethatisusedtonamethings.Deadlanguagescannotremovehuman fingerprints. “Phallus daemonicum” is as overt a culturalreference as “Electrolux.”[3] Or, as we shall soon see, as“heterosexual.”

Catalogingandnaminghumancharacteristicsisbutanextensionoftheprincipleofcatalogingandnamingnaturalobjectsandphenomena.Whennineteenth-centuryculturebegantoperceiveaneedtomanagesexual behavior on a civic level, it also had to devise language andconcepts with which to talk about them. The language that alreadyexisted for doing this lay mostly within the realm of religion—thesyntaxofsinandsinners,virtueandsaints.NeitherthatlanguagenortheChurchauthorityonwhichitrestedwereterriblydesirabletothenewsecularstate.Thepracticeofscientificnamingprovidedalogicalplace to turn. The physical and biological sciences (includingmedicine)couldclaimapoliticallyvaluableneutrality:theobjectsthatscience investigated were not the works of man but the works ofnature.Scientistscouldclaimthattheymerelylookedatwhatwas.It

35

wastherighttoolattherighttime.Butaswehaveseen,muchmightdependonwhatwaschosenforobservationandbywhom.

Itcanscarcelycomeasasurprise thatmuchofwhatwaschosenfor observation,when human sexuality became the object of study,waschosenbecauseitwasperceivedastroublesome.Norcanitcomeasasurprisethatthosewhodecidedtotakeuponthemselvesthetaskof cataloging and naming these troublesome sexual behaviors hadverystrongopinionsabouttheobjectsoftheirinvestigation,opinionsthatinfluencedtheirwork.Sexualityhad,afterall,becomeapressingpublic issue, and it wanted effective handling by people whounderstood just how serious an issue itwas.Nothing less than thefateofthefamily—andeventhenation—wasatstake.

FOCUSONTHEFAMILYIfthemorallygrey,sexuallysuspectworldoftheworking-classcitywastherealmofpublicconcernandstateregulation, theprivateandeminentlyrespectablerealmofthemiddle-classfamilywasoneoftheprimary thingsall that regulationwas intended toprotect.Beginninginthelateeighteenthcentury,anew“focusonthefamily”emergedasaprimaryconcernforthenewlyfledgedmiddleclasseswhosereach,ranks,andsocialpowerwereontherise.

Unlikeinheritedaristocraticwealth,middle-classmoneycamefromworkintheprofessions,fromtrade,or,increasingly,fromownershipandmanagementofindustry.Justaswiththearistocracy,tightcontrolover marriages, families, and children was key to protecting andincreasingthiswealthandsecurity.Butthemiddleclassesdidthisintheir own distinctive ways. Where the aristocracy (or indeed atraditional ruralworking household)would base its ideas of familyand lineageon themanagementofhereditary rankandproperty, themiddleclasses,ashistorianLawrenceStonehasexplained,organizedthemselves around four central and distinctively modern features:intense emotional bonds, a brash new emphasis on personalautonomy, an unprecedented interest in privacy, and an intensifiedinterestinsex.[4]

This last point may seem surprising, but it shouldn’t. The

36

stereotypical Victorian prude, and the Victorian lady of scrupuloussexual ignorance and passivity, did exist—their modern-dayanaloguesdotoo—buttherewasfarmoretoVictoriansexualitythanthis.Victorians, includingwomen, talkedmore and in greater detailaboutsexualissuesthananypreviousgenerationweknowof.

Itwas an era ofwide-ranging and often extreme opinions on allaspectsofsex.SomeVictorianswereindeedsex-phobic,misogynist,andprudish,evenpriggish.Physicians likeWilliamActonfamouslymadestatements like“themajorityofwomenare (happily for them)notverymuchtroubledwithsexualfeelingofanykind,”andBritishgynecologistIsaacBakerBrowndidadvocate,andperform,surgicalremovaloftheclitorisasacureforfemalemasturbation.[5]Butevenamonghiscolleagues,Actonwasknownasanillogicalextremist,andBakerBrownwaseventuallydrummedoutoftheprofession.

Other Victorians’ views of sex were quite progressive. Politicalpublisher Richard Carlile professed a belief that women “had analmost constant desire for copulation,” and only social constraintskeptthemfromactingonit.Wishfulthinking,perhaps,giventhelackof both social approval and reliable contraception, but others weresimilarlyboldaboutgivingsexualityprideofplaceinhumanaffairs.“Sexual matters,” wrote the popular physician and advisor HenryGuernsey,“aresothoroughlyinterwovenwiththehighestdestiniesofthehumanrace,physically,mentally,andspiritually,thereisscarcelyanyfunctionofhigherimport.”[6]

Mostnineteenth-centurymiddle-classindividualsstruggledtofinda sexualmiddleground—not asnegative andharsh as theviewsofActon or Baker Brown, but probably not as openly enthusiastic asthose of Carlile or Guernsey either—where they could feelcomfortable, respectable, and safe. This was no small task. Thebourgeois family, with its hothouse emotions and its pigeon-holeprivacies, was supposed to be a fortress and a shield, providing abuffer zone of respectability that protected its members fromaristocraticdecadenceontheonesideandthehorrorsoftheteemingcityontheother.Thepurposeof thisfamilywasthegenerationandformation of people—specifically men—who would form an

37

unassailablebackboneforthestate.The deliberate formation of a solid, respectable, and powerful

middle-classculturewasmorethanareactionagainst thearistocracyor,intheNewWorld,anefforttoembodythe“moreperfectunion”envisioned byAmerica’s founding fathers. It was also an effort tocreateastrongnationalcorethatcouldsurviveincreasingexposuretothe world. By the mid-nineteenth century, the United States, GreatBritain,andnearlyalloftheEuropeanstateshadextendedtheirreach,aswellastheirarmiesandeconomies,tothefarcornersoftheglobe.Whether in British India, the Belgian Congo, German EastAfrica,FrenchCambodia,oranyof the legionotherEuropeanorAmericanappropriations,successfulempiresrequiredadeptmanagementoffar-flung possessions inconveniently populated by vast numbers ofpeople who didn’t look, think, or act like their colonial overlords.“Natives”wereoftenthoughtofasprimitiveorchildlike,indireneedofthecivilizinginfluenceofthesuperiorEuropean.(Fearofabrownplanetis,inotherwords,nothingnew.Noristheracist,paternalisticsentimentwellsummarizedas“whatthesepeopleneedisahonky.”)Buttheeliteandthearistocracydidnothavethenumberstoprovidemorethantheuppermostlayeroftopbrass.Themajorityofcolonialpersonnel came out of themiddle classes.A powerfulmiddle classallowedEuropean andEuropean-descendedwhites tomaintain theirsenseofthemselvesasstandard-bearers,thosewhose“fitnesstorule”equippedthemforempire.

Thequestiononeveryone’smindwaswhetherthemiddleclasseswould prove equal to the task. There was a pervasive fear that thebourgeoisie, with their comfortable houses and citified ways, werecreatingmenwhowere hopelessly enervated, dissipated,weak, anddiseased.Neurastheniawasarathervague“illness”firstcharacterizedin1869byAmericanphysicianGeorgeMillerBeard.Itafflictedmenwithfatigue,anxiety,headache,depression,andsexualimpotence,towhichtheysuccumbedwhenaninsufficientlysturdyconstitutionwassubjected to an overly stressful and stimulating world. To many itseemedas if“respectable,”strong,competentwhitemasculinitywasdisappearing, creating the looming specter of what Theodore

38

Rooseveltwould later call “race suicide.”AsDarwin’sevolutionarytheory became popular, some began to wonder if perhaps it washappening backwards, the respectable classes eroding generation bygeneration, perhaps to the point where they might becomeindistinguishable from those troublesome teeming masses. WhenBritish army major-general Sir Frederick Maurice worried publiclyabouttheproblemof“wheretogetMen,”[7]itwasn’ttheproblemoffinding males that concerned him. Paranoia and pessimism aboutmanhood were so intense that Daniel Carter Beard, the highlyinfluential founder of theAmerican Boy Scouts, entitled his 1939autobiographyHardlyaManIsNowAlive.

Manliness, in turn, was tightly linked to sexuality. “Real men”were virile, but virilitymeant both sexual potency and its strict andwell-socialized control. Any form of “deviance,” includingmasturbation, was not onlymorally wrong; it was also believed todrain men’s bodies of vital essences and cause illness. SylvesterGraham,heoftheeponymoushealth-foodcracker,claimedthatamanwho could make it to the age of thirty without giving in to thetemptations of his sexual urgeswould be a veritable god.HistorianAngusMcLarendevotesanentirebook,TheTrialsofMasculinity, tolookingatthewaysinwhichunorthodoxsexuality—whetherrealorimagined, harmless or hurtful—was used from the mid-nineteenthcentury throughthe1930sasaway toseparate the“realmen”fromthe “degenerates” and “perverts.” It was a terrifically effectivestrategy. As William James noted an 1895 essay entitled“Degeneration andGenius,” “Call aman a ‘cad’ and you’ve settledhis social status. Call him a ‘degenerate,’ and you’ve grouped himwiththemostloathsomespecimensoftherace.”[8]

Sexual degeneracy became a yardstick with which to take themeasureof aman.Pimps andprocurers, exhibitionists, effeminates,pornographers, and bigamists, aswell asmore exotic creatures likesadists, fetishists, and necrophiles, came under intense scrutiny. Sotoo,notably,didmenwhohadsexwithothermen.Rapistsandthosewhopreyedsexuallyonyoungwomen,however,wereoftenignoredonthebasisthattheyweremoreunmannerlyoruncivilthantheywere

39

abnormalor“degenerate.”JournalisticmuckrakerW.T.Steadnotedwith some truth during the 1895 Oscar Wilde trial that if Wilde,“insteadofindulgingindirtytrickswithboysandmen,hadruinedthelivesofhalfadozensimpletonsofgirls,orhadbrokenupthehomeofhisfriend’swife,noonewouldhavelaidafingeronhim.”

The desire to identify and weed out these “degenerates” and“deviants”had,bythemiddlethirdofthenineteenthcentury,becomeapressingone.Howitwastobedone,ontheotherhand,andhowexactlytodescribeanddefinethekindsof“degeneracy”inquestion,wasfarfromclear.Lawsconcerningsexuality,mostlyinheritedfromthecanon lawof theCatholicChurch, tended tobevaguelywordedandimprecise.Otherdisciplineswerenobetter.Littlewonderthatthegapwasnot long leftempty,given thepressureon themiddle-classmaletoformtherightkindoffamily,betherightkindofman,and,moreover,beabletospecifywhatmadehimso.

THEINVENTIONOFHETEROSEXUALITYHad the German-speaking world not been going through somelegislativegrowingpainsinthe1860s,wemightstillliveinaworldwithout heterosexuals. Germany came together in 1866 alonggeographic lines that are more or less familiar to us today, anamalgamation of the multiple German-speaking kingdoms, duchies,andprincipalitiesoftheNorthGermanConfederationjoinedtogetherunderagenerallyPrussianleadership.Likemanycivilgovernments,Germany was still wrestling with the implications of the FrenchRevolution,aswellasfeelingtheaftershocksofitsownrevolutionaryconflicts in 1848. The new ideals of secular and civil governmentcompelled German law-makers,as they revised their legal codes tosuitanew,compositenation,tofigureoutwhattodowithinheritedcollectionsofsex-relatedlawsthatwereoftenmoreorlessidenticaltooldChurchdecrees.

It was a fraught process. Paragraph 143 of the Prussian PenalCodeofApril14,1851,inparticular,provokedsignificantprotest.P.143 stipulated harsh punishments, consisting of up to five years athard labor and accompanied by the loss of civil rights during the

40

periodofpunishment,foranyoneconvictedof“unnaturalfornicationbetweenpeopleandanimals,aswellasbetweenpersonsofthemalesex.” The rationale given for this law, and the severity of itsconsequences,wasthat“suchbehaviorisademonstrationofespecialdegeneration and degradation of the person, and is so dangerous tomorality.”[9] The law, clearly written to sound dispassionate,nonetheless sounds the old familiar religious gong of morality andsin.Asbefittingapost-Enlightenment,science-respectingculture,thelaw invokedNature as both a stand-in forGod and a dispassionatesecularauthority.Theadditionofdegeneracymadeitaucourantwithfearsof adecaying race.Takenall together,P.143providedhighlyeffective leverage against sexual misconduct for the government. Italso, inevitably, provided the same for blackmailers. Officially orunofficially,itwasalawtoruinliveswith.

Among the individuals who stepped forward to oppose the lawwereKarlUlrichsandKarl-MariaKertbeny.Theywerenotfriends,thoughtheycorrespondedforawhile,andonlyUlrichsisknowntohavebeenattractedtomen.ButbothsharedtheconvictionthatP.143wasunjust,anditisduetotheirworkthatwehavethewordandtheconceptofthe“heterosexual.”

Ulrichs’sdevotedopposition toP.143stemmedfromhishavingbeensackedfromapromisingbureaucraticcareerwhenhisattractionstomenwere discovered. The injustice led him to devote his life toarguing, as logically and as rigorously as he could, that same-sexsexualitywasnatural,inborn,andunchangeable,andthereforeoughtnot to be punished. Ulrichs was no scientist, but he scoured themedical literature for insights into his own sexual condition.Impressedbymedicalliteratureabouthermaphrodites,hedevelopedatheory that he too was a type of hermaphrodite. Wherehermaphrodites’ bodies encompassed bothmale-typical and female-typicalorgans in thesamebody,Ulrichsclaimed that theUrning,ormanwholovedmen,hadamalebodybutafemalemind.(Thenotionthatgender—thesocialaspectsofsexuality—mightbeseparablefrombiologicalsexdidnotbecomewidespreaduntilthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.)Ulrichs’stheoryof“sexualinversion,”rigorously

41

logicalbythestandardsoftheday,waspresentedin1864inapairofpseudonymously self-published pamphlets. Ulrichs hoped that hispamphletswouldpersuadeGermanlegislatorstochangetheirminds,andthusthelaw.

Austro-Hungarian Karl Maria Kertbeny shared Ulrichs’sconvictionthatthePrussianlawwasunjust.Afriendandcoworker’ssuicide, committed because a blackmailer threatened to expose theyoungman’s “abnormal tastes,” had openedKertbeny’s eyes to theproblemsinherentinalawthatmadeitillegalfortwomentoengageinactivitiesthatamanandawomancouldpartakeoftogetherwithoutconsequence.Kertbenyproducedtwostronglyworded,anonymouslypublishedpamphletsarguingagainstParagraph143thatemployedthenotionofhumanrightsasderivedfromtheFrenchDeclarationoftheRightsofManandCitizen.

Ulrichs’s and Kertbeny’s approaches differed in many ways.WhileUlrichsleanedontheinnatefemininityoftheUrningpsycheinorder to emphasize the involuntary character of same-sex desires,Kertbenyinsistedthatmenwholovedmenweretypicallymanlyandvirileanddeservingoffullcitizenshipin themodernstate.Ulrichs’sapproach,withitsinsistencethatmenwholovedmenwereonsomelevelnotmale,implicitlyendorsedtheideathatbiologicalsexcouldbelegitimategroundsfordifferenttreatmentunderthelaw.Kertbeny,bycontrast, took a leaf from English philosopher Jeremy Bentham’sbook and argued simply that it was wrong to punish actions thatharmednooneandall themoreunethical topunish themselectivelyaccording to the biological sexes of the participants. The two menshared a moderately sized correspondence, but Kertbeny neveradoptedUlrichs’smodelsorhis terminology.Hepreferredhisownsystemofclassification,firstexplicatedinalettertoUlrichsonMay6, 1868, inwhich he opposed “homosexuals” to “heterosexuals” astwoparalleland,heimplied,equaltypesofhumanbeings.

As it turned out neither man’s argument, nor their associatedterminology, made any dent in the law. Paragraph 143 and similarlawswereretainedthroughmultipleincarnationsoftheGermanlegalcode,laterbecomingP.175in1871whenGermanywasfullyunited.

42

Later, and infamously, Hitler used this law to legitimize theincarcerationandmurderof thousandsofSchwülen,or“faggots,” inthe concentration camps.The lawwasnot removed from thebooksuntil 1969. By that time, the “heterosexual” and “homosexual”terminology of those who had so stalwartly resisted it in thebeginning had won out, and so for the most part had the view ofsexuality those terms implied.[10] The rise of “heterosexual” washardly instantaneous,however.Moreover, ithadvirtuallynothingtodowithUlrichsorKertbenyatall.

ASEXUALITYCALLEDNORMALThus we return to Krafft-Ebing andPsychopathia Sexualis. Thepopularizationoftheword“heterosexual”wasfarfrombeingKrafft-Ebing’sgoalinwritinghisbook.LikeKertbenyandUlrichs,Krafft-Ebing’s interests did not really lie with the sexually typical or theheterosexual,butagainwiththeheterodox,theoutlier,andthesexual“deviant.” Although Krafft-Ebing did inadvertently establish“heterosexual”and“heterosexuality”asbiomedicaltermsinitspages,his actual purpose for creatingPsychopathia Sexualis was thesystematic observation, description, naming, and categorization ofsexualdevianceforthesakeofthelaw.Inthe1886introductiontothefirstedition,Krafft-Ebingwrotethathehopedthecatalogwouldbeofaidtothejudgesandlegislatorscompelledtoissuerulingsincasesofsexualmisconduct.PsychopathiaSexualiswasunquestionablygroundbreaking.Atthe

sametimeitwasderivative—Krafft-EbingdoesnotacknowledgehisdebtstoeitherUlrichsorKertbeny,amongothers—andnotverywellorganized. But it was the earliest known attempt at compiling acomprehensivelistofdisordersofthe“sexualinstinct.”InthegrandLinnaean tradition, it is a compendium of exotic “new” species ofhumanbeing,classifiedaccordingtotheirparticularsexualquirksorpathologiesandgivennamespredominantlyformulated,perthewell-establishedritual,frombitsofdeadlanguages.

IfwereadbetweenthelinesofKrafft-Ebing’sterminology,wegeta pretty clear idea of what he was willing to characterize as

43

appropriate,healthysexuality:potentiallyprocreative intercourseandverylittleelse.Krafft-Ebing’sviewswereratherakintothoseoftheCatholicChurch: anything that did not lead to the ultimate goal ofprocreation was inappropriate, if not outright pathological. Even atthat, Krafft-Ebing held, one had to engage in this potentiallyprocreative intercourse at the right time of life. Those who weresexual at the wrong time—during childhood or old age—sufferedfromparadoxia.Oneadditionallyhadtodoitwiththerightattitude.Toomuch interest in sexandyouhadacaseofhyperaesthesia, toolittleanditwasanaesthesia.Thereseemedtobeanendlessnumberofwaysinwhichonecoulddeviatejustabittoomuchfromwholesomesexuality.

Newly christened and described, these and a variety of otherheterodox behaviors and characteristics, including sadism,masochism, and fetishism, entered the lexicons and the communalimaginationsnotjustofmedicinebutalsooflaw,government,andthegeneral public. Krafft-Ebing’s book was highly academic, and hewentoutofhiswaytopenthereallyjuicybitsinLatinonthetheorythat it would limit the consumption of potentially titillatinginformation. This diminished the readership not at all, since mostmiddle-classEuropeanmenofthedayweresufficientlywelleducatedthat a little bit of Latin posed no obstacle. In any event, thereweresoontranslationsaplenty,includingthefirstAmericanEnglisheditionin1893.Somuchfortheoldcatchallsofsodomyand“crimesagainstnature”; the increasingly widely understood message was that themodernsexualdeviantspecialized.

Noneof thesespecializedbehaviors, itbearsrepeating,werenewtotheannalsofhumanexperience.Manyhadwell-establishedslangnames. “Thegameat flatts,” for instance,was anEnlightenment-eraEnglishphrase referring to sexbetweenwomen,bothofwhomhad“flat”genitals.Butaformaltaxonomymadetheseactivities,andthosewhoengaged in them, real in awholenewway.Nowherewas thistruer than in the case of the word “heterosexual,” twenty-fourappearancesofwhicharescatteredthroughoutKrafft-Ebing’sbook.

Like its sibling “homosexual,” the word “heterosexual” is a

44

stitched-together Frankenstein’s monster of a term, half Latin, halfGreek.InKrafft-Ebing,itisusedalongside“normal-sexual”withoutmuch apparent preference for one over the other. It seems to havebeenonlyafterPsychopathiaSexualisbecameastandardtext,anditsterminologybegantoseefurtheruseinthemedicalliterature,thatthemorescholarlysounding“heterosexual”finallyfounditsniche.

As Jonathan Ned Katz writes in hisThe Invention ofHeterosexuality, Krafft-Ebing’s “disturbing (and fascinating)examplesofasexcalledsickbeganquietlytodefineanewideaofasex perceived as healthy.” That healthy sexuality centered aroundreproduction,butKrafft-Ebinggrudginglyacknowledged that it alsoencompassedthedesireforandpursuitoferoticpleasure.Thiswasawatershed.After Krafft-Ebing, the “sexual instinct” could refer toeroticdesireaswellasreproductivepotential.

“Heterosexual” did not, however, spring forth as a householdwordwithasingleuncontestedmeaning.Forafewyears,itwasusedasa termofpathology.Thefirst timethewordappearedinEnglish,predatingtheEnglishtranslationofPsychopathiaSexualisbyayear,was in an 1892 journal article by Chicago physician James G.Kiernan.Kiernanandafewcontemporariesemployed“heterosexual”usingadifferentunderstandingoftheGreek“hetero,”or“different,”to mean “both.” Kiernan’s “heterosexuals” were people we wouldnow call bisexual.Dorland’s Medical Dictionary of 1901 repeatsthis, but additionally defines the term to mean an “abnormal orperverted appetite toward the opposite sex.” That definition wasechoed in the Merriam-WebsterNew International Dictionary of1923.Theearlyuseof“heterosexual”todescribebehaviorsthatwereconsidered pathological reflects, more than anything else, a deep-seated anxiety about sexual desire. It took English sexologistHavelock Ellis to resolve these anxieties and to stabilize“heterosexual”with ameaning that approaches thewaywe use thewordtoday.By1915,Ellishadbeguntousetheword“heterosexual”asshorthandforatypeofrelationshipbetweenmale/femalepairsthatsimultaneously included theennoblingemotionof love, thepotentialforprocreation,andtheexperienceoferoticpleasure.

45

BythetimetheunabridgedsecondeditionoftheMerriam-Websterdictionary was published in 1934, “heterosexual” had appeared inmainstreamprintinbothEnglandandtheUnitedStates.[11]The1934definition of the term, according to Merriam-Webster, was“manifestationofsexualpassionforoneoftheoppositesex;normalsexuality.” The normal-sexual was the heterosexual, and theheterosexual was normally, typically, acceptably, even laudablysexual. With the help ofgood old-fashioned scientific taxonomy, amodelforsexualdesireandactivitybetweenmenandwomenhadnotonly been legitimized; it had been made emblematic of an inherentphysical and psychological normalcy that suited both respectablemiddle-classfamiliesandthewell-regulatedsecularstate.Themodernheterosexualhadofficiallybeenborn.

46

CHAPTERTWO

CarnalKnowledge

Imagine yourself poking around the attic of your grandmother’shouse.Breathingthedusty,closeairundertheeaves,youopenanoldtrunktofindseveraldiariesboundinold,crackedleather,allwritteninthesamegracefullyloopinghand.Thenamewrittenontheflyleafis familiar, a great-great uncle’s. Intrigued, you flip through theyellowed pages, only to stop when something catches your eye, apassageinwhichyourlong-deadancestorwrotethatheandafriendnamedWilliam“retiredearlyandineachother’sarmsdidfriendshipsinkpeacefullytosleep.”[1]

Youlookbackafewpages. Itseemsthat this isanoldboardingschoolfriendofyourgreat-greatuncle’she’stalkingabout,whocametovisithimathomeseveralyearsaftertheyhadbothgraduated.Theywouldbothhavebeengrownmenbythen,thoughstillontheyoungside,earlytwenties,perhaps.Thesetwoweresharingabed?Fallingasleep in eachother’s arms?Hmmm.Maybe itwas just a figureofspeech.

Nextyousift throughabundleoflettersaddressedtoyourgreat-great-grandfather, each still tucked into its brittle old envelope.Youopen one, a long, chatty missive from one of his law schoolclassmates,commiseratingwithyourgreat-great-grandfatheraboutthedifficulties of starting a law practice in a strange town.Maybe, theletter writer ventures, it would be easier if they could cooperatesomehow.Thenyouturnthepage.“Yes,James,Imustcome;wewillyoke together again; your little bed is just wide enough; we willpractiseatthesamebar,andbeasfriendlyapairofsinglefellowsasevercrackedanut.”[2]

What would you think if you stumbled across these family

47

heirlooms? Would you think you came from a long line of closetcases?Wouldyouassume,basedontheavailableevidence,thatyourgreat-great-grandfathermust have beenbisexual at the very least? Itwouldmakesenseifyoudid.Mendon’tgenerallysharebedsunlessthey’re sexually involved with one another, after all. Everybodyknowswhatsleepingtogethermeans.

Ordowe?Toustoday,sleepingtogetheralmostinvariablymeanssexualactivity.Butas it turnsout thisassumption isof fairlyrecentvintage. For most of human history it just meant sharing a bed, apragmaticsolutiontotheproblemofexpensivebeds,bedlinens,andbedrooms. In an era before central heat, sharing a bed also meantyou’d be warm at night. To be sure, bed sharing wasn’t alwayspleasant, as letterswritten by travelers sharing inn-house bedswithlousy,farty,unmannerlystrangersattest.Butinmanypeople’slives,bedsharing,whichalwaysinvolvedmembersofthesamebiologicalsex, represented not only a common but an emotionally intimaterefuge, so tender thatHermanMelville compared it, in thepagesofMobyDick,totheintimacyoflong-marriedcouples.

Byandlarge,ourancestorsseemtohaveappreciatedsharingtheirbeds. Even younger siblings, who we might think would’vewelcomed finally having a bed to themselves after an older siblingthey’dhadtosharewithlefthome,sometimesmisseditterribly.TheteenagedElishaWhittlesey,lateraUScongressmanduringAbrahamLincoln’s term, wrote to his older brother William, “I never knewwhatitwasbeforetobeseparatedfromadearBrother....YouandIwasalwaystogether....ImissyoumostwhenIgotobed.”Indeed,Lincolnhimself iswell known tohavebeen abed sharer, a fact onwhichmanyspeculationsabouthis sexualityhavebeenbased.Asapennilesslawstudent,herentedlodgingswhoselowcostwaspartlyduetothefactthatthebedwasshared.ThemanwithwhomLincolnshared thatbed,JoshuaSpeed,becameoneofLincoln’sclosestanddearest friends. Both male and female same-sex friends frequentlysharedbedsoutofaffection,withwomenfriendssometimeseven,ashistorianCarrollSmith-Rosenbergnotes,“dislodginghusbandsfromtheirbedsandbedroomssothatdearfriendsmightspendeveryhour

48

ofeverydaytogether”duringvisits.Noresponsiblehistorianwouldclaimthatallbedsharing,always,

wasstrictlynonsexual.Itwouldbenaivetothinkthatproximityandopportunity never led to things going bump in the night. Somerelationships we would now describe as “homosexual” or“homoerotic” undoubtedly flourished without comment behind thescrim of propriety granted by this unremarkably common practice.But the fact is that bed sharingwas common, and itwas seen asproper. The simple fact that bed sharing was assumed to be anunremarkable, nonsexual experience suggests that this, in the vastmajorityofcases,isexactlywhatitwas.

Clearly, what “everybody knows” about sharing a bed haschanged. Once what “everybody knows” was that it wascommonplace for friends, family members, and fellow travelers tosharebedsonaregularbasis,andthatsharingabedwasalltherewasto it. Now, what “everybody knows” is that “let’s spend the nighttogether” has only one unequivocal meaning—to the point that theRollingStoneswere forbidden to sing theoriginal lyricsonThe EdSullivanShowin1967andfromperformingitaltogetherintheirfirstappearanceinChinain2006.

Although the things “everyone knows” seem like common-senserealities, inevitableandunshakablefacts, thetruth is that theyaren’t.Theychange.Butifwhat“everyoneknows”canchange,thenhowisitthateverybodystillseemstoknowit?Howdoweknowwhatweknow about sex? How do we arrive at our expectations, ourinterpretationsofwordsandbehaviorsandappearances,ouropinionsof ourselves and of others where sexuality is concerned? Does itmatter?

KNOWINGWHATTOTHINKWhen anthropologists talk about this “stuff everyone knows,” theyuse the termdoxa. [3] Doxa comes from the Greek for “commonknowledge,” and that’s a pretty good description of what it is: theunderstandingweabsorbfromournativeculturethatweusetomakesenseoftheworld.Doxais,quiteliterallyinmostcases,thestuffthat

49

“goes without saying,” the assumptions and presumptions and“common sense”ideaswehaveaboutourworldandhow itworks.Virtually everything we know about sexuality, and heterosexuality,we know—or think we know—because of doxa. Perhaps the bestwayformetoexpressthepowerofdoxaisthatitisthereasonthat,even as you read these words, some of you are probably secretlytellingyourselvesthatitdoesn’tmatterwhatsomesillyhistoriansays,those sentimental gentlemen sleeping in one another’s arms wereclearlygay.

Absorbing a culture’s doxa, very much including its doxaregarding sexuality, is an inescapable cultural process that starts atbirth.Doxainfluencesvirtuallyeverythingwedo,includingthewaysinwhichwehandleinfants.Forinstance,thecryingofbabyboysismore likely to be perceived by caregivers as being “excessive,”whereas the crying of baby girls is more likely to be perceived asnormal. Baby boys are therefore more likely to be punished forexcessive crying, not because they actually cry excessively butbecausetheyareboys.[4]

Thisissimultaneouslyanexpressionandateachingofdoxa.Babyboysdonotknowthattheyarelearningdoxawhentheyarepunishedfor crying. The big brothers and sisters of those baby boys don’tknowtheyarelearningdoxawhentheyseeithappen.Caregiversarenotnecessarilyaware that theyare teachingdoxa tochildren,or thatthey are treating boy children differently than girl children becausedoxahastaughtthemto.Peopledon’texperiencedoxaasanexternalforce; they experience it as internal knowledge: the stuff that“everyoneknows.”Yetifwhat“everyoneknows”isthat“boysdon’tcry,” then the likelihood that boys will be punished if they do crybecomes greater.And if “everyone knows” that boys who cry arepunished, the likelihood is that boyswon’t cry if they can possiblyhelpit.

“Doxa”may, in its unfamiliar Greek, sound like abstruse ivory-towertheory,butit’sjustanameforaveryreal,mundane,routinelyoverlookedeverydayprocess.“Boysdon’tcry”isdoxa.Butitisnotjustanabstractbelief;itisalsoadailyinfluenceonhowpeoplethink,

50

speak, and act. This is precisely how doxa becomes seamless andinvisible and, for better or worse, “just the way things are.”Knowingly and unknowingly, willingly and unwillingly, weparticipateindoxabecauseit ishowweknowwhatisdesirableandundesirable to thepeoplewedealwithdaily,what isacceptableandunacceptable,whatwillgetuspunishedandwhatwillgetuspraised.Doxaismadeupofallthethingsweneedtoknowreflexivelyifwearetosucceedinnavigatingtheexpectationsofourculture.

Atthesametime,doxaneedsus.Doxadoesnot,andcannot,existwithoutpeopleorculture.Andaspeoplechangeandcultureschange,so, aswe’ve seenwith the exampleofbed sharing,doesdoxa.Butdoxa does not change because some top-down authority tells it to.Our big cultural authorities—organized religion, medicine, thesciences, thelaw,themedia,andsoon—canexerta lotof influenceondoxa,but theycannotsimplycreate it fromnothing.Thecreationof doxa is a folk process. We all create it, together, mostlyunintentionally.

Thefolkprocessofdoxabecomesverycleartouswhenwelookat the different ways that the things “everyone knows” aboutheterosexuality have been created. Whether it involves assimilatinginformation that originates with authority figures, creating markedcategories, invokingGodandnature,or interpreting statisticswithadecidedlypopulistbent,we takepart ina largeculturalconversationthat selects, shapes, and distributes knowledge. In these ways andmany others, we participate—and are always participating, whetherwe realize it or not—in the process of creating what “everyoneknows”aboutheterosexuality.

HOMEOPATHICFREUDTheprocess bywhich cultures create doxa is noisy. It relies on theexistence ofmany different voices, a vast cloud of information andopinion and back-and-forth with a decidedly low ratio of signal tonoise. Noisy, however, does not mean random. If you are familiarwith the social media platform Twitter, you have probably alreadyseen the phenomenon of a large cultural conversation taking on

51

distinctmoods and subjects at specific times, simply by glancing atTwitter’s automatically generated “trending topics” list.“Heterosexual”gainedprominenceinourthinkingandourvocabularyinprettymuchthesamewayasatrendingtopicdoesonline:moreandmorepeoplestartedtalkingaboutituntilfinallyitcameintoitsown.

Beforethiscouldhappen,however,“heterosexual”hadtogetintothe conversational flow. For Kertbeny and Krafft-Ebing, you willrecall, “heterosexual” was nothing more than an experiment inclassification,anattempt todefineandcategorizesomethingthathadn o tpreviously had a name. For us, “heterosexual” is not anexperimentbutacornerstoneofhowweorganizeourideologyofsex.As a culture,we believe that a thing called “heterosexuality” exists,inherent and irreducible. We believe it produces certain kinds ofdesires,behaviors,andrelationships.Inthelate1800s,hardlyanyonehad heard of such a thing as a “heterosexual.” By 1950,“heterosexuals” were everywhere, and most people firmly believedthey always had been.Quite a bit had to happen in the interveningdecadesinorderfor“heterosexual”togofrombeingjustanawkwardneologism to being a primary and unquestioned tenet of sexualitydoxa.Oneof themajorforces in this transitionwasSigmundFreudand,moreimportantly,thepopularizationofhiswork.

Freudwassimultaneouslyasimplisticandahighlycriticalthinkerwhenitcametoheterosexuality.Morethanonceheadmittedthatthe“exclusive sexual interest felt bymen forwomen is also a problemthat needs elucidating and is not a self-evident fact based on anattraction that is ultimately of a chemical nature,”[5] andacknowledged, in an equally radical insight, that heterosexualityrequired just as much restriction in its choice of object ashomosexuality. But at the same time as he made these incisiveobservationsaboutthecomplexityofsexualdesires,healsoacceptedwithout reservation that heterosexuality existed. Freud’s belief thatheterosexualitywas a genuine human phenomenon and a normativecharacteristicofhumanbehavior is reflected throughouthiswork. Itwas this large-scaleFreudianism—andnot thenuancedasides—thatmade Freud’s name in the English-speaking world, especially in

52

America.FreudiantheoriesonsexbegantopercolatethroughtheEuropean

andAmericanintelligentsiainthe1910sand’20s,gainingmomentumand visibility to the point where they more or less ruled thepsychologicalroostwellintothesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Freud’s premise that adult sexuality was developed via a longsuccessionofsocialinteractionsthatbeganininfancywasparticularlypopular and influential.Everyperson,Freudargued,wasbornwithanintrinsicsexualcapacityaspartoftheirphysicalandpsychologicalmakeup.Whatbecameof this innate sexualpotentialwasdependenton a devilishly complicated equation with a terrifying number ofshadowy andoften lurid variables that could as easily gowrong asright.

Being a properly constituted heterosexual thus became anachievement.InFreud’sworlditwasnotmerelynatureorGod’swillthatmade a person sexually “normal.”Upbringing and familyweremurky,treacherouswatersthathadtobenavigatedcorrectlytoarriveatadultheterosexuality’ssafeharbor.Freudiantheoryimplicatedthemiddle-class nuclear household and the world of relatives, friends,school,andstrangersaswellinthecreationofadultsexualpersonae.Parent-childrelationshipswereparticularlyimportant,andwoebetidetheparentwhounwittinglyfailedachildatanypoint in this fraughtendeavor.

Theresultofachievingapropersexualtrajectory,fromaFreudianpointofview,wasnotonlythatapersonwouldfeelsexualdesireforapartnerofthe“correct”biologicalsexbutthatheorshewouldarriveatadulthoodwithawholearrayofspecificdesires,propensities,andawareness.MenwouldhavelearnedtodiverttheirOedipallongingsfor their mothers onto other women, as well as to channel theirrampant progenitive desires into more socially acceptable forms ofcreativitysuchasarchitectureandfarming.Theywoulddesiresexforsex’ssake,themselves,butinstinctivelyknowhowtoclassifywomenon the Madonna/whore continuum.[6]As for women, they wouldhave overcome their childhood desires to sleep with their ownmothers...andtheirownfathers...andlearnedhowtodesiresex

53

withtheirhusbandsinthenameofasubconsciousdesireforchildren.Awomanwouldalsodevelop themagical (andautomatic)ability toimprintonthemantowhomshelosthervirginity,anexperiencethatwouldforevercolorherrelationshipbothtothatmanandtothesexualact.

The transformation of the polymorphously perverse child into aproperlyfunctioningheterosexualadultwasexceedinglycomplicated,making “normal”heterosexuality dependent on the success ofmanydelicateandentwinedoperations.Fewpsychologistsstillsubscribetosuch literal Freudian theories of sexuality formation, but theirinfluence lingers in thepublic imagination.Even today,peopleoftenassumethatnon-heterosexualityhastodowithaperson’sparentsorupbringing, some kind of sexual trauma, or some condition ofarrestedpsychologicaldevelopment.

After Freud, as Jonathan Ned Katz puts it, it was clear that“heterosexualsweremade,notborn.”ButevenFreuddidnotsimplyreachdownandbestowthissensibilityuponuslikesomegrandiosegod.Hecouldn’thave.EveninFreud’sheyday,relativelyfewpeopleactually read his works. Freud’s influence on us is due to whatamounts to a gigantic, culture-wide game ofTelephone.Authors ofmarriagemanualsandsexualself-helptitleswereparticularlypronetoleaningon,ifnotalwaysleapingaboard,theFreudianbandwagon.

Intheearlydecadesof thetwentiethcentury,for instance,Britishwomen’s reproductive-health crusaderMarieStopeswas among theauthoritative voices repeatingFreudian notions such as the idea thatthe way a woman loses her virginity will automatically andpermanently color her attitudes toward sex. Freud had given thisnotionhis scholarly andmedical imprimatur inhisThreeEssaysontheTheoryofSexuality in1905.Stopes reinforced it in1918 inherbest-sellingMarried Love, explaining that husbands who were tooeagerandselfish tobe tenderon theirweddingnightswerecreatingwives who would always dislike sex and resent their husbands’imposition.

ThedepthofFreud’sinfluenceshowsallthemoreclearlywhenitemerges in the work of writers like the influential Theodor van de

54

Velde, who ordinarily steered clear of psychology in favor ofphysiologicalverities.VandeVelde’s1926 IdealMarriagewastheJoyofSexofitsday,goingthroughforty-sixprintingsinitsoriginaledition before being reissued in 1965. (The Joy of Sex dates from1972.) In its pages, van deVelde calmly endorsed Freudian claimsthat “the longing for maternity” was a primarymotivator of sexualinterest “in themajority ofwomen,” aswell as passing along otherFreudian shibboleths, such as warning of the dangers of sexualneurosis and “psychic impotence” among men who were “brainworkers.”

ThroughsuchrepetitionFreud’stheoriesbecametruisms,andthetruisms,echoedoverandover, readby thousandsanddiscussedbythousandsmore,graduallybecameincorporatedintoourthinkingonagrand scale. Before long, they emerged as doxa. The process wasdoubtless hastened both by the internal logic of Freud’s theoreticalframework and by the fact that Freud’s theories were invented asclinical observations made of people’s recollections of theirexperiences. Particularly in the large outlines in which popularsources typically handed them down, they were easily adapted forself-analyticaluse.[7]Becausepsychoanalysisandself-analysiswereautomatically transactional and participatory, Freud’s theories onsexuality were uniquelyavailable to the public conversation.By thetimeofWorldWarII,abasicallyFreudianunderstandingofsexualityhadbecomeaculturalcommonplace,asexdoxathathascontributednot only to the now-laughable notion that comic books turn youngpeople into juvenile delinquents and sexual deviants, but whichcontinues to influence the ideology of American government-mandated“abstinence-only”sexeducation.[8]

Atthispoint,Freud’spresenceinoursexualitydoxaoftenseemsweirdly indirect, diffuse, almost homeopathic. This is precisely thepoint:whenideasthoroughlypermeateaculturetheyemergeasdoxa.ThewidespreadanddramaticsimplificationofFreudianideasiswhatgave them theirpower to shape thoughtandaction.Freudnever setouttoinfluencemillionsofpeoplewhoneverreadawordhewrote.Henevercouldhave.Repetitionanddiffusion,ontheotherhand,did

55

adandyjobofmakinghisideasintointegralpartsofwhat“everyoneknows”aboutsex.

THEOPPOSITEOFSLUTAnotherwaydoxagets shaped, transmitted, andput intopractice isthrough language.Consider, forexample, theword“slut.”Callingawomanaslutsinglesherout.Itlabelsherasnotjustdoingsomethingwrong,butdoingquiteabitofit.Shebreakstherules,runsrightoverthe boundaries of sexual propriety, goes overboard in a direction arespectablewomanisn’tsupposedtoadmitto.“Slut”isclearlypartofthedoxaofsex,inthatitinformsusofaboundaryinregardtohowsexualaperson,specificallyawoman,issupposedtobe.

But if a “slut” is the exception, what is the rule? What is theoppositeof“slut”?“Slut”isanexampleofwhatsocialscientistscalla“marked category,” meaning a term that signifies something thattransgresses or contradicts the expected or the doxic.[9] Thedifferences between “nurse” and “male nurse” or “bishop” and“femalebishop”are themodifiers thatmark thedifferencesbetweenthetypicalandtheatypical,theexpectedandthestartling.Weseethesame effect atwork inwords like “disabled” and “disfigured,” andindeed in “retarded,” all of which imply the existence of somecomparativelybetterormoreperfectstate that thepersonor thing inquestionhasdeviatedfromorfailedtoachieve.

Through these implied or direct comparisons, marked categoriesclearly indicate what is considered foundational, the baseline fromwhicheverythingelseisadivergence.Considerthephrase“peopleofcolor.” This might be considered a politically correct phrase thesedays, but what is its unmarked equivalent? It should be “colorlesspeople,” but it isn’t: there is no such thing as a colorless person.“People who are not ‘of color’” are the baseline, the default, theunexceptional, the normal. The unmarked category against which“people of color” are tacitly opposed are “not-colored” people; inotherwords,whites.

Marked categories are, we quickly apprehend, a particularlyefficientwaytocommunicatedoxa.Markedcategorieslike“peopleof

56

color,” with no clearly defined corresponding unmarked category,tend to be the most socially potent of all. When the unmarked,expected, normative “default” category is unnamed and invisible, allthe focus falls on the marked category: there is nothing that isoppositeandequal.Whatdowecallpeoplewhoareattheotherendof the spectrum from sluts? Prudes, perhaps. But “prude” too is amarkedcategory,theextremeattheotherendofthebellcurve.Thereisnomeaningfulwordforthemiddleofthatbellcurve,thespacethatfits comfortably inside the boundaries of doxa, the space thatmostpeopleoccupymostofthetime.Namelessandcharacterless,thespacewe can loosely characterize as “normal” is almost completelyundefined.

This iswhy“slut”and“prude,”“pervert”and“deviant”allworksowellasinsultsandaswaystopolicetheboundariesofsexdoxa.The labels are effortless to deploy and hard, even impossible, todefend against.As any woman who has been the subject of slut-shaming knows all toowell—and about two out of threeAmericanwomendealwiththiswhiletheyarestillinhighschool,accordingtoa 1993 study done by the American Association of UniversityWomen—the victim has no traction.[10] The facts of her sexualexistenceareimmaterial,allthatmattersisthatshehasbeenpaintedinthe brightTechnicolor of themarked category and cannot disappearintotheamorphousinvisibilityof“normal.”Theoppositeof“slut”issomeonewhohasnotbeen labeleda slut, someonewho has neverbeenchargedwithviolatingdoxa.Theoppositeof“pervert”isexactlythesame:someonewhohasneverbeenchargedwithbeingone.

This makes it doubly fascinating, and doubly relevant, that theword “heterosexual” exists. For many thousands of years, as yourecall,therewasnowordforit,illustratinghowthingsthataredoxicand typical are usually not singled out with names; they justare.Kertbeny coined “heterosexual” and “homosexual” as a pair onpurpose:havingtwomarkedcategoriesinsteadofonlyonegeneratesa certain amount of equality, which was precisely his point. Thepaired words suggest that both “homo” and “hetero” are markedcategories whose specialization sets them off from the unmarked

57

human universal, the undifferentiated “sexual.” The idea of aprimitive, undifferentiated sexuality that developed into a morestructuredandboundedsexualpersonawascentraltoFreud’stheoryof sexuality, and a belief in this developmental process has becomepart of our doxa. Yet at the same time, there is a great deal about“heterosexual”thatremainsamorphousandundefineduntilwecrossa line and become a prude, a pervert, a deviant, or a slut.Markedlanguagegivesusoursexualitydoxanotbycarefullydefiningwhatisexpectedofus,whatwillbeacceptedbyourfamiliesandfriends,butby marking out—with the linguistic equivalent of a scarlet letter—whatwillnot.

IT’SONLYNATURALNature, the physical universe, is the baseline of our reality. Itencompasseseverythingthatexiststhatisnotmadebyhumanhands,and it encompasses the humans—and their hands—aswell.All thephysical forces that cause natural phenomena to happen are alsonature,fromtheweaknuclearforcethathelpsholdatomstogethertothemysterioussparkthatmakesthedifferencebetweenlifeanddeath.Nature exists spontaneously, without our having to do anything; itwasherewhenwegothereanditwillbeherewhenweleave.Thisisprecisely why people so often attempt to rationalize doxa, theirexpectations and assumptions regarding human behavior, based onwhatexistsorfailstoexistinnature.

This is particularly true when it comes to sex, and naturearguments in regard to sexual activity betweenmen and women inparticularhavebeen around for avery long time.Reproduction is aparticularlydramaticandimpressivenaturalphenomenon,anddoublyimpressive because it is what perpetuates the species. For earlyChristians,itwastheonlythingsufficientlyimportanttojustifyeithersexual desire or sexual activity. Every sexual behavior and everysexualdesire thatcouldnot leaddirectly toconceptionsoonbecamelabeled with the fateful phrasecontra naturam, against nature. Thesexesoftheparticipantswerenotthelimitingfactorinwhetherasexactwas“againstnature,”thepotentialforreproductionwas.Evenfor

58

a duly married man and woman, any time “someone obtains orconsentsthatsemenbespilledelsewherethanintheplacedeputedbynature,”asmedievalclericWilliamPeraldusputit,theChurchlabeleditcontranaturam.[11]

Fascinatingly, though, by the time Peraldus was writing in theearly thirteenth century, theChurchwas labeling ascontra naturamevensomesexualactivitythatwouldhaveseemed,onthesurface,toplay by the potentially reproductive rules. Historian Ruth MazoKarraspointsout that“againstnature”wasopenlyusedtocondemnbehaviors that are clearlynot contrary to nature, notably includingrear-entry vaginal penetration.Anymedievalman orwomanwouldhave been well aware that there was nothing unnatural whatsoeveraboutpenis-in-vaginaintercourseinthisposture,havingseenanimalsdo it. Yet it, along with any position other than what later becameknownas the“missionary,”wasdecriedasbeing“againstnature intermsofthemanner.”TheChurchwanted,andindeedinsistedupon,a version of what was “natural” that was identical to the doxa theChurch endorsed.What churchmenwerewilling to condone on thebasis of its being “natural” was a pretty severely edited version ofactualnature.

Suchopportunisticandspecificembracesof“nature”arecommon.. . and telling. When, for instance, psychotherapist Richard Cohenadvocated“reparativetherapy”[12]in2000toagroupcalled“ParentsandFriendsofEx-Gays,”heclaimedthat“thereisnoscientificdatathatsubstantiatesageneticorbiologicbasisforsame-sexattraction.”(Cohen’sclaimiscorrectasfarasitgoes.However,asweshallseein the next chapter, there is no scientific data that substantiates ageneticorbiologicbasisforsexualorientation,period.)Onlywillfulhuman perversity, he implied, could explain the existence ofsomethingthatisnotbiologicallypredestined.[13]Ontheflipside,ithas been strongly suggested in many quarters, not least the augustpages ofNational Geographic, that same-sex sexual relationshipsamong animals provide a legitimating natural origin, and possiblyeven evidenceof a natural purpose, for same-sex sexuality amonghumanbeings.AsUniversityofLiverpoolevolutionarypsychologist

59

RobinDunbarput it, “Anything thathappens inotherprimates,andparticularlyotherapes,islikelytohavestrongevolutionarycontinuitywithwhathappensinhumans.”[14]

The fact that opposing viewpoints can both lay claim to naturalsupport for their views on human sexuality should come as nosurprise.Nature isvastandcontainsmultitudes.Theonlygenuinelyconsistent aspect of the claims we make about the relationshipbetween what happens in nature and our beliefs in terms of whatshouldhappeninhumansexualityisthathumanbeingsaretheonesmakingtheclaims.

Wewoulddowelltoconsiderthesource.Itisnotnaturethatissokeen to tell uswhat is trueor rightor legitimate in termsofhumansexuality. “What exists in nature,” after all, encompasses anextraordinary variety of sexual activities, routinely includingpolygamy, polyandry, gang rape, incest, cannibalizing one’s mates,and the injection of sperm packets (spermatophores) into a mate’sbodilyflesh.[15]It’softenratherhorrifyingbyhumanstandards,butthat’s precisely the point: nature isn’t so choosy as we are. Whenhuman beings cherry-pick examples of sexual behavior in nature tobuttress their own beliefs about the way sexuality is or should beamong humans, it is virtually never an accurate reflection of whatnaturedemonstrates.Asareflectionofhumanbeliefsandvalues,ontheotherhand,itisinevitablyspoton.

NUMBERSRACKETWithin months of the 1948 publication of the first Kinsey report,SexualBehaviorintheHumanMale,Kinsey’sstatisticalapproachtosexuality was so much on people’s minds that it showed up onBroadway.

AccordingtotheKinseyReportEveryaveragemanyouknowMuchprefershislovey-doveytocourtWhenthetemperatureislow

60

InKissMe,Kate,ColePorter’ssassy,slightlyrisquélyricsfor“TooDarn Hot” were not just a reference to an unprecedented andcontroversialpieceofresearch,buttestamenttoawholenewwayofthinkingaboutsex.

Statistics, a seventeenth-century invention, had already mergedwith the nineteenth-century notion of demographics by the timeKinsey began his study of human sexuality in Indiana in the late1930s.Kinseywasnot thefirstoronlyperson toapplyanumbers-oriented approach to sexuality. Little remembered now, pre-Kinseyresearchers such as Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, Lewis Terman,GeorgeHenry,andCarneyLandishadalreadydonepioneeringworkontopicslikethesexlivesofcollegestudents,attitudesaboutsexandmarriage, same-sex sexual behavior, and gender roles. With theirinterviews, questionnaires, statistics, and demographic correlations,theycreatedawholenewmodeforresearchonsex.Theprofoundlysubjective theoretical approaches of psychoanalysts like Freudwerebased on one-on-one case studies. The pathological catalogs ofKrafft-Ebingandhisilkdealtonlywithpeoplewhohadalreadybeendefined as sick, perverted, or damaged. Quantitative research onsexuality, by contrast, gave researchers a window into the genericeveryday.

Like Linnaeus’s quest to document every organism in God’screation, the new sexology sought to document the range of whatexisted.Whatresearchersdiscoveredwasthatalotmorepeoplewerehavinga lotmoresexofa lotmorekindsandvarieties thananyonehadpreviouslysuspected.Andthesepeople—5,300meninthe1948Kinseyreport;5,940womeninthe1953—wereofatypethatcouldnot be easily ignored. Mostly middle-class, predominantly college-educated, typically white men and women, Kinsey’s subjects wereexactlythesortofpeoplewhodominatedthecultureoftheday.

WhatwassoremarkableaboutKinseywashisrelentlessinsistencethat everyday sexual activity was a legitimate phenomenon of thenatural world and a proper subject for classic bench-scienceobservationanddocumentation.Byregardingsexualbehaviorasjustonemorephenomenonthatsciencecouldobserve,Kinseywasableto

61

reducetheeffectsdoxahadonhisabilitytogatherinformation.Thisdispassionateapproachtosexualbehavior,devoidofvaluejudgmentsor moralist crusading, was an important and lasting contribution tosexology.

Kinsey’sattemptstokeepdoxicjudgmentoutofhisdatacollectiondid nothing, however, to prevent his audience from interpretinghisdata throughdoxa’s lens. Far from it.Kinsey’smethods, combinedwith his large sample sizes, made it possible for readers to beginthinking about sexuality not just demographically, but as a sort ofrepresentationofculturalconsensus.Hisdata,collectedinaspiritofinclusivity and transparency,was often interpreted as evidence of asortofmajorityrule.

ThiswasparticularlyrelevantbecauseKinsey’sresearchindicatedthat, for a significant majority, the boundaries of then-current doxaand the boundaries of sexual experience matched fairly well.Analintercourse and oral sexwere genuinely uncommon in male/femalerelationships.Mostpenis-in-vaginaintercoursedidtakeplacewiththemanontop.Mendidreportbeingmoreeasilyandfrequentlyarousedthan women, and people whose sexual lives exclusively involvedother-sexpartnerswereinthevastmajority.Generalreaders,aswellas doctors, lawyers, and themedia, didn’t hesitate to use Kinsey’sworkasproofthatdoxawasright,thatallthesethingswereeverybitascorrect,right,andnormativeastheyhadalwaysbeenclaimedtobe.

Then again, Kinsey’s work also documented a great deal ofheterodox sexuality. The first report’s revelations of substantialamountsofmasturbation,adultery,same-sexactivity,premaritalsex,and other transgressive activity in the general population createdshockwaves. The sexually orthodox could, andmost assuredly did,findaffirmationandasenseofsolidarityintheKinseyreports.Butsocould the heterodox outliers. Contemporary sexual identity politicsbecamepossible,inpart,becausethesexuallyunorthodoxcouldpointtoKinsey’s statistics asproof that theywerenot alone.Rather thanbeing marginalized as “sick” or “deviant,” unorthodox sexualactivitiesandthosewhopracticedthemcouldsimplybecharacterizedinmathematicaltermsasminorities.

62

Thiswasapowerfuloptioninthoseearlydaysof thecivilrightsmovement.TheUSmilitarywasraciallydesegregatedbypresidentialexecutive order in 1948, the same year the first Kinsey reportappeared,andthelandmarkBrownv.BoardofEducation verdictwasgiven in 1954, the year after the second Kinsey report. Early gayliberationists enthusiastically took up similar strategies to thosefightingracialinjusticeandbegantodeveloptheirownformalidentitypolitics.Thenow-canonicalslogan“oneinten,”usedtoclaimthatonein ten people are homosexual,was derived fromKinsey’swork byHarryHay, founder of the pioneering gay rights organization theMattachineSociety,whousedittolobbyforinclusionandrights.

Both the status quo and the nascent agenda of sexual liberationfounddatatheycoulduseinKinsey’sresearch.Theuseofstatisticsfordoxicalendshasn’tslowedsince.Quantitativeresearchonsexualbehavior not only continues to be a major stream of sexology, butstatistically oriented sex surveys have become a mass-marketstandard. National periodicals likeMen’s Health, Glamour,Cosmopolitan, and even the youth-focusedSeventeen sponsor oradminister sex surveyswith almost the frequency of universities orgovernmentagencies,andofteninconjunctionwiththem.[16]

Through this kind of intensively mainstreamed quantitativeresearch,thegeneralpublichaslearnedtorelyonthesexsurveyasameansofgaugingsexualperformance.What“everyaveragemanyouknow”thinks, likes,ordoessexually—orat leastwhatheclaimshedoes when researchers ask—is used both as proof of “how thingsare” in a general sense and as a yardstick formeasuring individuallives.

Thisissomewhatproblematic,becausethequalityofsexresearchis notoriously difficult to gauge.Like almost all research on humansubjects, it is prone to problems like sampling bias and leadingwording in questionnaires, but it is also significantly prone toproblemsof exaggeration andomission in respondents’ answers.A2009 study in theJournal of Sex Research showed that when 376heterosexually active men and women were asked to completeseparate daily and retrospective reports of how often they had

63

engagedinpenis-in-vagina intercourseovera two-monthperiod, thereports often didn’t match.When called on to recall their sex livesover the previous twomonths, subjects commonly reported havinghad more sex than their daily reports indicated had actually takenplace.[17]Thiswasnotdeliberatedeception,justtypicalvariabilityinterms ofmemory and expectations. These are endemic problems ofsexualityresearch,andtheymeanthatevenwhendataisprovidedandcollectedwith the best ofmethodology and intentions, the numbersthat a sex survey generates simply may not be very accurate. Yetresearchers and readers alike tend to ignore this. The numbersthemselves achieve a sort of authority all their own. Even toresearchers who should know better, sometimes statistics seem tocreate their own realities, fromwhich people derivenew rules, newexpectations, and new doxa about what is required to be sexually“normal.”

Withoutourevennoticingit,weassistincreatingsexualitydoxa,performtheworkofpassingitalong,anduseitinourownlivesandin our interactions with other people—including when weinadvertently adjust our accountings of our sex lives to makeourselveslookbetterorjust“morenormal”whenweareinterviewedby sexologists. Our doxa of sex influences how we experience it,teachinguswhatmakesgood sexgoodandbad sexbad, standardsthat also, as we shall see, change over time especially for women.Doxaaffectswhat andwhomweare comfortable (movie stars) anduncomfortable(ourparents)consideringassexualentities. It teachesus what desires we can express publicly without much fear ofcensure,andwhichdesireswe’dbettermakesurenooneelse findsoutaboutifwedon’twanttogetbeatenup.

Doxanotonlyshapeshowwe think, feel,andactwith regard tosex; it also influenceswhat thingswe are capable of talking about,feeling,andthinking.Withoutdoxathatestablishes, inan“everyoneknows”sortofway,thatheterosexualityexists, itwouldbeunlikelythatanyonewouldsimplyclaimoutof thebluethat itdid.It isonlybecauseweliveinaculturewherevirtuallyeveryonedoesagreethataqualitycalled“heterosexuality”isrealthatpeoplehaveexperiencesor

64

emotionstheyarecapableofidentifyingas“heterosexual.”Formostofhumanhistory,asyouwillrecall,noonedidanythingofthekind.Peoplehadsexualandemotionalexperiences,tobesure.Perhapstheyfelt excited by them, or scared, or bored, or enlightened, orembarrassed. But we may be certain that it was not until after“everyone knew” that “heterosexual”was a thing one could be andexperience themselves being that anyone had the experience of“feelingheterosexual.”

Thereis,ofcourse,alevelonwhichsexualactivityisnotamatterofdoxa andmeaningbutmerely an issueofbodies andmechanics.Butwedonot, asmuchaswemight like tobelieve in“no strings”sex,actuallyengageinsexualactivityonthatpurelymechanicallevel.All sexual behavior between human beings is social, and sociallymeaningful. Note that I do not say that all sexual behavior isimportant. Importance is not the same thing asmeaning.But sexualactivities,evenmasturbation,aresocialactivities,andallhaveatleastsome cultural significance.AsDavidHalperin puts it, “Sexuality isnotasomaticfact;itisaculturaleffect.”[18]Doxaisboththemediumthat creates this thing we call “sexuality” and, simultaneously, therulebook by which we figure out what “sexuality” means forourselvesandforeveryoneelse.

65

CHAPTERTHREE

StraightScience

Scientifically speaking,we don’t knowmuch about heterosexuality.No one knows whether heterosexuality is the result of nature ornurture, caused by inaccessible subconscious developments, or justwhat happens when impressionable young people come under theinfluence of older heterosexuals. We do not know whetherheterosexualshavedifferentanatomyorphysiologycomparedtonon-heterosexuals.Ourknowledgeofanypotentialdifferencesintermsofhow heterosexuals’ nervous systems respond to sexual stimulus,comparedtonon-heterosexuals,isnonexistent.

This isn’t toosurprising.Wehaven’tbeen looking.Nodedicatedneurologisthaseverhunchedovermicroscopeslidesofbrain tissueteasing out telltale details that make a “heterosexual brain”heterosexual.Endocrinologistscannotgiveusthehormonalrecipeforthe biochemical cocktail that makes a person straight, nor havegeneticistseventriedtolocatesuchathingasa“straightgene,”exceptinsofarastheyoftenassumethatgenesare“straight”unlesstheyaresomething else. Sociobiologists have yet to register any definitivestatementsonquestions likewhetherbeing the firstborn,orperhapshavinga lotofolder sisters,ormaybebeinganonlychild, increaseone’soddsofgrowinguptobeheterosexual.Dozens,evenhundredsof scientists have made careers, sometimes quite influential andlucrative ones, in attempting to answer exactly these and similarquestions where homosexualityis concerned. But somehowheterosexualityseemsalwaystobeleftoutinthecold,withnoonetoshowtheslightestconcernforitsnatureorworkings.

Interestinglyenough,sciencehasyettoprovethatheterosexuality—or indeed any sexuality—exists in any way that is relevant to

66

materialscience.Forthistobethecase,heterosexualitywouldhavetobedemonstratedtohaveaphysicalandobjectiveexistence.Itwouldhave to be quantifiable, in grams or nanometers or angstroms oramperesorjoulesormilliliters.Anditwouldhavetobemeasurableinsome way not dependent on having a human being, with humanbiases, be the judge of whether or not it exists—that is, it wouldregisteraweightonascale,produceachemicalreactioninatesttube,giveofflightorheat,andsoon.

This is the nature of the searching that lies behind much of theresearch that looks for things like “gay genes” or “gay hormones.”The theory is that if physical scientific evidence of homosexualitycouldbe found, itwouldprovideanobjective foundation for sexualorientation,makingitalegitimateobjectfortheempiricalsciences.

Thesameshouldbetrueofheterosexuality.Afterall,inorderfortheretobethemarkedcategory“gaybrain,”theremustbeanopposedunmarked non-gay brain. The confirmation of the existence of themarkedcategorywouldsimultaneouslyhavetoconfirmtheexistenceof theunmarkedone.Neitherone,however,hasyetbeenconfirmedtoexist.

Thisisnotforlackoftrying.Manyscientistshaveclaimedtofindevidenceofhomosexualityinthebody,inanatomyandgeneticsandhormones,butnonehassofarhelduptoscrutiny:whenwelookforproof that our “gay” bit of the body is genuinely different from adefault“straight”model,theevidencetendstofallapart.Inthefaceofmore than a century of failing to find an empirical basis for sexualorientation, thedepthof the faith scientists continue tomaintain thattheywillfindsuchathingisalmost touching.It isalsoverytelling:therearea lotofpeopleout therewhoverybadlywant thedoxaofsexual orientation, in which we all have an enormous socialinvestment, to have a physical, demonstrable existence.But the factremainsthatscientistsoftenlookforevidenceofnon-heterosexuality,whatweconsider the exception to the rule,while assuming that theheterosexual rule itself requiresno evidence.Scientifically speaking,this isprecisely backwards. In science, it should technically not bepossibletoevenbeginconsideringwhethertheremightbeexceptions

67

toaruleuntilyouhaveproventhattheruleexists.The fact that researchers have repeatedly assumed a material

scientific validity for heterosexuality without seeking verification issimultaneously problematic and completely unsurprising. Thatheterosexualityexistsisdoxa:“everyoneknows”thatheterosexualityisreal.Butwhatisrealfromthestandpointofcultureisnotalwaysornecessarily real from the standpoint of physical science, as theexample of phlogiston eloquently attests. Phlogiston was the namegiven in 1703 to something that learned scientific men had longassumedhadtoexist for theworld tofunctionas itdid:acolorless,odorless, tasteless, insubstantial substance that was capable ofburning. Anything that could be burnt, it followed, containedphlogiston, and anything that contained phlogiston could have itsphlogistonremovedbyburningoffthephlogiston.Itwasnotuntilthe1780s that experiments by the French chemist Anton Lavoisierproved that phlogiston did not and in fact could not exist.[1]Nevertheless,someveryfinescientists,notablyJosephPriestley,theman who discovered oxygen, continued to cling to the phlogistontheory for theverygood reason that itwas familiar, consistent, andexplainedlotsofthingsthatscientistshadobservedinexperiments.

It is possible that, from the perspective of the physical sciences,includingbiomedicine,“heterosexuality”and“homosexuality”mayberather like phlogiston. No matter how formal the name sounds,heterosexualitywasnot,afterall,developedasascientificconceptoraccordingtoanythinglikescientificprinciples.Aswerecall,theideaof something called the “heterosexual” was developed by non-scientists,specificallyforuse in thenon-scientificmilieuof the law.From its very inception, “heterosexual” was about people as socialentities, participating in social and sexual interactions with oneanother, in the larger context of their society and their nations andnational legal codes. There is nothing about the concept ofheterosexuality that suggests, or has ever suggested, that itmust ofnecessitybeanobjectivephysicalqualitywithameasurablephysicalexistence.

When “heterosexual” caught on in the sciences, it was through

68

psychiatry, the branch of medical science to which the social is ofmaximum importance. Early psychiatry in particular was essentiallynon-biological in itsorientation. Itspractitionersdidstudymedicine,butasweknowfromtheworkofFreudandhiscontemporaries,thestateof thepsychiatric artof thatdayhad todowithmemories andrepression, dreams and the unconscious. The sorts of sophisticatedbiomedical models we use today in talking about mental andbehavioral medicine—neuroanatomy, biochemistry,neuropharmacology—simply did not yet exist. At the time when“heterosexual”wasinitsinfancy,theexistenceofhormoneswasjustbeingdeduced(theword“hormone”datesfrom1905),andtheearth-shatteringnewsfromtheworldofbrainanatomywas thediscoveryof the location of theBroca’s (1868) andWernicke’s (1874) areas,two of the regions in the brain responsible for language. Theapplicationofeventhecrudestphysicalbiomedicalexperimentationtotheproblemofsexualresponsewouldnothappenuntilafter1910.

Early psychiatry was part of the material-science field ofbiomedicineby convention andbecause its practitioners had studiedmedicine,notbecausetheactualpracticeofearlypsychiatryhadmuchtodowithbiomedicalphysical science.“Heterosexual,”coinedbyalaymanwhowas just trying to articulate a protest against an unjustlaw, became “scientific” and “medical” because it was adopted andusedbymenwhohadscientificeducations,notbecause ithadbeenrevealedorprovenbyexperimentationandresearch.

As a psychiatric inheritance, “heterosexual” was promptlyenshrined inmedical practice as a standard of normalcy and properfunction. There it has remained. The overwhelming assumption,amongnaturalscientistswhoworkonsexualorientation,appears tobethatheterosexualitysimplymustexistasaphysical-sciencereality.Were it not, the myriad attempts to explain homosexuality onbiomedicalgroundswouldnotmakemuchsense.Butthetruthis,noonehasyetestablished—or,tomyknowledge,attemptedtoestablish—that a quality called heterosexuality exists not as a socialphenomenon among humans, but as a spontaneously appearingmaterialentityinnature.Theyonlybehaveasiftheyhad.

69

THEDEGENERATEINTHEMIRRORTheearlydaysof“heterosexual”werealso theearlydaysof sexualscience. As nineteenth-century race, gender, and class insecurityfoundapointoffocusinsexualdeviance,itcametoseemimperativethat “degenerates” be managed, lest they place the upright andrespectable at risk of falling pell-mell down the crumbling rungs ofthe evolutionary ladder.A vast body of what can be described asmedico-legal andmedico-moral literature began to appear, includingPsychopathia Sexualis. Such texts were intended to help doctors,lawyers, and other specialists understand and deal with thesedangerousdeviants.

Outofthesewritingsemergedtwomajorsubtextsthatreflectednotonly on the deviant few, but also on the “normal-sexual” many:conformity with gender role, and conformity with the principle ofprocreativity. Two additional concepts, the notion of a sexualorientation and themore subjectivenotionof a sexual identity, bothgrew out of the obsession with determining the parameters ofdeviance.

Procreativity was a fairly straightforward standard. For earlysexology, as it was for the Catholic Church, the only defensiblesexual act was a potentially procreative sexual act. The further thatsexual activity took one from the potential for procreation, the lessdefensible and more “perverse” it was. Acts between same-sexpartners fell clearly and decisively into the nonprocreative category.Butsotoodidtheuseofcontraception,whichwaswidelyviewedasmorallywrongdespiteitsgrowingpopularitybehindcloseddoors.

Newly named dynamics like masochism, sadism, and fetishism,however suspect they might have been, were not automaticallybeyond the pale. A certain masochistic tendency was consideredpsychologically normal in women and a corresponding sadistictendency normal in men. Early British sexologist Havelock Ellisclaimed this was a legacy of a fundamental, less complicated pre-civilization sexuality in which males seized women for sex, andwomenacceptedsuchaggression.Inmodernpeople,hethought,suchaggression and submissionwere quite normal as long as theywere

70

notexcessive.Freudheldasimilarview,takingthefairlyliberaltackthat an act had to turn completely away from procreation before itbecameaperversion.Butmostpeople,andmostwriters,seemnottohavebeensotolerantasFreudorEllis.Virtuallyallofwhatwewouldtoday term “foreplay”—another concept for which we must thankFreud—couldbeandoftenwasconsidered toononprocreative tobewidelyaccepted.Aslateas1920,sexadvisorslikeWalterRobiehadto vigorously reassurecouples that it was all right to do noncoitalthingsthatgeneratedmutualpleasure,cheerleadinghusbandstosuchoutrélengthsasto“Kisswithoutshame,forshedesiresit!”[2]

Nonprocreative sexwas seen as problematic not only because itwas sterile. It also defied, or appeared to defy, gender norms.Accordingtothedoctrineofsexualcomplementarity,developedinthelateEnlightenment,themalewastobeactivetothefemale’spassive,desiring to the female’s desired, pleasure-seeking to women’smaternity-seeking,andsoon.Awomanwhosubmittedpassively tointercoursewithherhusbandwasnormal,whileawomanwhotookan active role, like getting on top,was not.Neither, for thatmatter,was a husbandwhowillingly tolerated such things.AnymanwhovoluntarilytookonasexualroleotherthanwhatAngusMcLarenhascharacterizedas“theimpenetrablepenetrator”wasconsideredatleastsuspect,ifnotoutrightdeviant.Menwhoperformedoralsexontheirfemalepartners,forinstance,wereconsideredpassiveandeffeminate.The women who allowed or, worse, requested such a thing,remarkably enough, might be credited with sadism. Many earlysexologists and their colleagues believed such dangerous cross-genderedbehaviorcouldrepresentthebeginningofaslipperyslope:oncehebecameinclinedtothe“passivist”actofperformingoralsexonwomen,amanmightcontinuetobecomemoreandmorepassiveuntilhebecamethelowestofthelow,afellatorofothermen.

By far the era’s favorite phantasm of deviance and ruin wasspermatorrhea, or the “excessive” loss of semen. This fictitiousdisease was usually blamed on masturbation, the ultimate innonreproductive sexual activity. Avoiding and preventingmasturbationbecameapervasiveandurgentlyfeltconcern,givingrise

71

tonumerousbooks,pamphlets,treatmentregimes,andafewlucrativecareers. In addition to well-known preventatives like Bible study,cold-waterbaths,dietaryfiber,andBoyScouting,otherremedieslikechastitybelts,tyingchildren’shandstothebedposts,andhardmanuallabor were indicated to assist the masturbator in conquering hisaddiction to self-abuse. The masturbator who could or would notrefrain courted consequences ranging from nervous exhaustion,insanity, syphilis, bed-wetting, impotence, sterility, effeminacy, lossofvitality,homosexuality,andperhapsevendeath.[3]

Anything and everything, it seemed, could spur one to thedissipating, morally degenerate, vitality-sapping practice of self-stimulation. Reading novels was considered a high-risk activity,encouraging fantasyand laziness.Constipationwas judged toexcitethe nerves of the pelvis and encourage insalubrious behavior; bothSylvesterGraham’seponymouscrackerandJohnKellogg’sbreakfastcereals were part of the effort to ensure regular, healthy bowelmovementsthatwouldnotcauseunduestimulationtosensitivebitsofthe anatomy. Some believed the use of the vaginal speculum bygynecologists would make women sex-mad and lead not just tomasturbation but nymphomania—associated with unseemly“masculine” levels of sexual interest—and perhaps even toprostitution. Even thumbsuckingwas an enemy of sexual proprietyand was vilified in high scientific medico-moral style in pediatricliteraturefromthe1870suntilthe1950sasencouragingmasturbationandcausinganugly,telltaledentaldeformitytoboot.[4]

Mostdangerouswastheforeskinofthepenis.Merelytohaveonecould rouse a man to deviant thoughts and actions as the foreskinmoved over the head of the penis during everydaymovements. Topreventthis,doctorssometimespiercedtheforeskinandinfibulatedit,holding it closedwith loopsofwire.Muchmoreoften the foreskinwas simply removed.[5] The routine circumcision of baby boys atbirth, championed heavily in the United States by pioneeringpediatricianAbrahamJacobi,wasviewedasareasonableprecautionagainstmasturbationanditsdestructiveeffectsonhealth,morals,andtheabilitytohaveanormalmarriedlife.Thepracticecontinuestoday

72

in US hospitals, its original aims swept discreetly under the rug,justifiednowbycontroversialclaimsthatitimprovesgenitalhygieneandmaylessenrisksofcertaininfections.[6]

Frighteningly, itwasnotonlysexualmisconduct thatpresentedathreat to procreativity and proper gender. Noisy and complicated,crowded and stressful, the new urban, industrial world likewisegroundawayatone’sconstitutionwithitsnewspapers,trainjourneys,anddissipating entertainments.Amanwho could notwithstand thepressuresofmodernlifecouldeasilybecomeahysterical,feminized,and impotent “neurasthenic.” Too feeble to perform properly asheterosexuals,neurasthenicsandother“psychicimpotents”mightturntofetishes,voyeurism,exhibitionism,masochism,orevenothermeninordertogetenoughstimulationtoovercometheirdebilitatedstate.Such sexual enervation, Austrian psychologist and sexologistWilhelmStekelargued,couldevenleadtomurder,withthedaggerorbulletbecomingastand-inforthepenisthatcouldnolongerpenetrate.

Deviance, it was clear, was everywhere. It was subversive andsubtle and lurked even in the private and mysterious realms ofthoughtsandemotions.Aspeopleweremademoreandmoreawareofallthemanywaysinwhichdeviancecouldinfiltratetheirlives,anundercurrent of sexual self-consciousness and self-examinationbecame an increasingly commonplace experience. The mandate toavoid degeneracymeant knowing at all times thatwhat one desiredandhowonebehavedwereabovesuspicion.Eventhesubconsciousmind—a Freudian, and thus a contemporary, invention—was to bethoroughlyinterrogatedwiththehelpofpsychoanalysis,lestitharborhiddenmonstrosities.Atanymoment,itseemed,onecouldlookintothemirrorandfindadegeneratelookingback.

This is different in several important ways from the proto-gaysubculture that formed around urban undergrounds of men whodesired and had sexwithmen. In the entertaining and enlighteningMotherClap’sMollyHouse:TheGaySubcultureinEngland1700–1830, historian Rictor Norton reveals that well before any medicalprofessional or lawmaker had a notion of something called a“homosexual” or a “heterosexual,” there were men spontaneously

73

self-identifyingandformingcommunitybasedontheirsharedsexualdesireforothermen.Thesemenwerenotonlyawareoftheirsexualcommonality; they built culture around it: they called themselves“mollies”andcalledoneanotherby feminine“maidennames,”dealtwithwhatwewouldnowcallgaybashingandpoliceharassment,andsometimes called upon priests known to be one of their own toperformfuneralservicesformenwhohadbeenhangedassodomites.Simultaneously informal and established, visible and underground,molliesandtheirsubcultureclearlyexisted.

Thisdoesnot,however,makethemtheequivalentofmodern-daygays.Anditcertainlydoesnotmaketheirnon-mollycontemporariesthe equivalent of modern-day heterosexuals. The fact that smallgroups of eighteenth-century urbanites understood themselves to besexuallydifferentfromthenorm,andunderstoodtheirsexualdesiresandpreferences tohaveparticularsocialsignificance,doesnotmeanthat those outside this subculture had any similar understanding oftheirs. It particularly does not mean that those outside the mollysubculture had any sense of themselves as being “not-mollies.”Indeed,whywouldthey?

Yet this ispreciselywhat itmeans tohave the sense thatone“isheterosexual”: to understand one’s self to be part of a specific,distinctivesexualculture.Theself-identificationofsmallnumbersofsexuallynon-normativeindividualswasnotsomethingthatgeneratedasensibilityof“theheterosexual”or“thenormal-sexual”intherestofthepopulation.Whatgeneratedthissensibilityinthemainstreamwastheincreasinglycommonexperienceoflookinginthemirrortoseeifadeviantordegeneratelookedback.

This self-inspection was not the result of a spontaneous innerdesire to “know thyself” that was magically, simultaneouslyexperiencedorganicallybyhugeswathesoftheEuropeanandNorthAmericanmiddleandupperclasses.Itwastriggeredsocially,byfear.Becoming sexually self-aware was a matter of pure old-fashionedself-defense.

Western culture acquired sexual self-consciousness on a grandscale because self-assessment offeredways to defend against being

74

marked as a degenerate or deviant. Heterosexuals learned toexperienceheterosexuality—tothinkaboutthemselvesas“being”and“feeling” heterosexual, to believe that there is a difference between“beingheterosexual”and“beinghomosexual”—becausetheyneeded,innewlyofficialways,toknowwhattheyweren’t.

SexualirregularitywasnolongerreallyamatterfortheChurch.Ithadbecome,asKrafft-Ebing’sintroductiontoPsychopathiaSexualismadeclear,aproblemfor lawmakers,cities,andstates.Anyoneandeveryonecouldbeasinner.Bydefinition,infact,everyonewas.Sinwaslamentable,butitwasunderstandable,evenexpected.Whatwasnot understandable or expected, and certainly not excusable, weredevianceanddegeneracy.Norwerethestakesatallthesame.Thisiswhere the concept and experience of this thing called “sexualorientation” come from. It does not stem from relatively smallnumbersofpeoplewantingtosignaltootherslikethemthewaysinwhich they were sexually outside the mainstream. It stems fromenormousnumbersofpeoplebeingveryanxiousaboutthepossibilityofseeingadegenerateinthemirror.

DEFINING“HETEROSEXUAL”“Heterosexual” does not have a single standard scientific definition.Different disciplines, and indeed even different researchers withinsingledisciplines,usethewordtomeandifferentthings.Thisismorethan merely incidental sloppiness. Scientific method and scientificauthority depend in part on clear and consistent definitions that aresupported by careful observation. Yet when heterosexuality is thesubject, scientists all too often behave likeLewisCarroll’sHumptyDumpty:

“WhenI use aword,”HumptyDumpty said in rather a scornfultone, “itmeans justwhat I choose it tomean—neithermore norless.”

“The question is,” saidAlice, “whether youcan make wordsmeansomanydifferentthings.”

“Thequestionis,”saidHumptyDumpty,“whichistobemaster

75

—that’sall.”[7]

Thisisnotmerelyavocabularyproblemorevenanattitudeproblem.Itisascientificproblem.Inbiological,physical,andsocialsciences,the lackofstandardizeddefinitionscreates inconsistencyandlackofclarityinresearch,andintroducesseriousproblemstotheprocessofinterpretingdata.

The potential meanings of “heterosexual” run a wide andproblematic gamut. “Heterosexual” may simply be an adjectivedescribing different-sexed individuals, specifically male and female,engaging in some sort of shared behavior. The behavior could besexual or reproductive, but it need not be. “Heterosexual” pairs ofmonkeysmightgroomoneanotheror fightover food.Thisdoesn’tnecessarilytellusanythingaboutwhetherthemonkeyshadanysortof sexual relationship, or whether there were or weren’t particularsocialbondsbetweenthem.Itjustmeansthatpairsofmonkeys,eachconsistingofamaleandafemalemonkey,engagedinparticularsocialbehaviors.

This is sometimes what “heterosexual” means even when thecontext of the study does have to do with mating or reproduction.ResearchersRalph Greenspan and Jean-Francois Ferveur, forinstance,discussedheterosexualcourtshipinDrosophila in aReviewof Genetics article. [8] Here again, “heterosexual” means merely“different-sex” or “male/female.” It does not imply anything aboutwhat motivates the observed behavior, let alone anything about thesubjectiveexperienceofthefruitfliesunderconsideration.Itcertainlydoesn’t imply that therearealsohomosexualDrosophilawho comeout to their parents or hang out in itty-bitty fruit fly gay bars.“Heterosexual,” in the context of this article, just characterizes thebiologicalsexesofcreaturesthathappentobeengaginginabehaviorrelated to sexual reproduction. It doesnot imply that these creaturesare“heterosexuals”inthesamewaythathumansmightbe.

Sofar,sogood.Butwhathappenstothesesimple,straightforwardusesof“heterosexual”whenwhatscientistsactuallyobserveinnatureis not what they expected to find?What happens to “heterosexual”

76

when the relationship between biological sex and sexual behaviordoes not conform to our expectations? In the 1970s, for example,endocrinologists conducted studies on rats treatedwithheavydosesofsexhormonesthatupendedtheirnormalhormoneprofiles.Inrats,sufficiently high doses of sex hormones can override an animal’susual sexual behavior instincts, so that biologically male rats givenheapingdosesofestrogenswillpresenttheirrearendsinthefemale-typicalmating posture known as lordosis,while biologically femaleratssimilarlytreatedwithtestosteronewillmounttheminthemannertypicalofmalerats.

Scientists remarking on this research pointed out that these ratscould be accurately described as behaving either heterosexually, inthat theywere engaging in sexual behaviorwith a rat of a differentbiologicalsex,orhomosexually,inthattheratswereengagingsexualbehaviorsthatwereidenticaltothosethattheirdifferent-sexpartnerswouldnormallyexhibit,femaleratsbehavingasmalestowardmales,male rats behaving as females toward females.Or the rats could bedescribed as behavingsimultaneously heterosexually andhomosexually.Itdependedonwhichvariable—thebiologicalsexesofthe participants, or the behaviors they engaged in—was seen as theone that counted more.[9] If “heterosexual” mating activity could,strictly speaking, encompass behavior completely unlike what iscolloquiallyunderstood by “heterosexual mating activity,” criticsasked, how scientifically meaningful was the term “heterosexual”?[10]

Suchambiguitiesarecompoundedwhen“heterosexual”isusedinregardtohumanbeings.Doestheresearchermeanoneofthetypesof“heterosexual” outlined above? Or is he instead referring to thevariableanddynamicmixtureofculturalidentity,emotionalresponse,sexualdesire,physiologicalarousal,economicandsocialroleplaying,eroticactivity,andreproductivepotentialthatwemeanwhenweuse“heterosexual”inconversation?Itisrather,asMarkTwainmight’veputit,likethedifferencebetween“lightningbug”and“lightning.”

Wealsomustconsiderwhodoesthelabeling.Doestheresearchinquestionrelyonhavingsubjectsself-identifytheirsexualorientation?

77

Weknowalltoowellthatnoteveryonedoesthisinthesamewayorwith the same criteria. Or has the researcher assigned the“heterosexual”(or“homosexual”) label tohissubjects,andifso,onwhat basis? Researchers often identify subjects as heterosexualsmerelybecause theyarenot identifiedotherwise,asortof“innocentuntilprovenguilty”approach.Ortheymaydiagnosesubjects’sexualorientations based on criteria that might or might not be linked toheterosexuality, for instance, assuming that any woman who hasgivenbirthtoachildmustbeheterosexual.Inhis1991researchintosexualdifference in the regionof thebraincalled thehypothalamus,neuroanatomistSimonLeVayclassifiedhissubjects’sexualitybasedon their cause of death. Subjects who had died of AIDS-relatedcauseswerecountedas“homosexual”while theothersubjectswereassumed to be heterosexual. Numerous scientific critics slammedLeVay for “compiling inadequate sexual histories,” a professionalwayofsayingthatLeVaywasassigningsexualorientationtosubjectsbased on evidence that could not provewhat he claimed it did.[11]Butthesewell-justifiedcriticismsdidnotmakeitintothemainstreammedia,wherenewsofLeVay’s“discovery”of“gaybrains”—solidlyrefuted since, it should be noted—was making headlines, andLeVay’scareer.

Withoutarock-solidstandarddefinition,oratleastastrictprotocolfor articulating definitions with respect to any particular researchprojectorstudy,wedonotactuallyknowwhatliesunderthehoodofa scientific “heterosexual.” This makes it very difficult, if notimpossible, to draw any scientifically meaningful conclusions fromstudytostudy.

Furthermore,asDr.LeVay’sexampleshows,anawfullotofdoxacan hide in the assumptions that are made in the setting-up andconducting of scientific research. This does not mean that physicalscience is not a useful tool, or that it has nothing to tell us about“heterosexual.”What itdoesmeanis thatwehavealongwaytogobefore physical science is even surewhat it’s talking aboutwhen ittalksabout“heterosexual,” letalonebefore ithasanythingdefinitivetoteachusaboutwhatthatmightbe.

78

KNOWINGSEX,KNOWINGDOXAMaterial and biological sciences simultaneously know a great dealabout sex . . . andnotverymuchabout it at all.Material science isgoodatdescribingobjectsandphenomena thatcanbeobservedandmeasured.Biologyisbrilliantatdocumentinganddescribingphysicalactions that take place, and reasonably acute at figuring out thefunctionsperformedby thoseactions.This iswhy there is somuchexcellentscientificworkaboutthebiology,physiology,andanatomyof sex. Bodies and their workings are material objects, subject toconsistent natural laws. Physical actions are interactions with thematerialworld,withobservableanddocumentableconsequences.

Whatmaterialandbiologicalsciencesarenotsogoodatdoing—fortheverysimplereasonthatitisnotwhattheyaresetuptodo—isdocumenting and explaining things that are not physically tangible.The physical and biological sciences can, for instance, explain howpenisesbecomeerect.Theycanexplainhowvasodilationtakesplaceandbloodflowtothepenisincreases,howthespongybodiesinthepenis fill with blood, what physics and hydraulics are involved inmakingthepenisstiffen,andhowbloodistemporarilykeptinsidethepenissothatthepeniscanremainerect.Butnoscientistcantellyouwhether that erect penis is gay or straight. An erection might becaused by a heterosexual desire or a homosexual desire or, for thatmatter, by the action of a drug. These things do not affect howerections happen or how they function. From the standpoint of thephysical and biological sciences, one erect human penis ismore orlessinterchangeablewiththenext.

Thisissomethingweoftenhaveadifficulttimeacceptingwhenitcomes to human beings and human sexuality. Lurking deep in ourdoxa, and possibly quite a bit deeper than that, is the notion thataspectsofwhoweareandwhatwehaveexperiencedwillinevitablymanifest themselves physically in the body. It is a conceit we arerearedon:howmanychildren’sstorieshaveevilcharacterswhoarehideousordeformedandgoodoneswhoarebeautiful?Westigmatizethe disabled, the deformed, and the just plain funny-looking on thebasisoftheirbodies,assumingthemtobestupidorincompetent.

79

Wedo thiswheresex isconcerned, too.Evennow,despite therebeing no proof for it whatsoever,many people are still profoundlyattached to the idea that having penetrative sex for the first timepermanentlychangesawoman’sbody,thatyoucantellthatawomanisnolongeravirginbythewidthofherhipsorthewayshewalks.[12]

But we non-scientific laypeople are not the only ones guilty ofassuming that when it comes to who we are or what we haveexperienced sexually, the body will out. Physical and biologicalscientistswholookforevidenceofdistinctive“gay”bodies—whetherintermsofgenesorhormonesorbrainsorgrossanatomicalfeatureslike fingers or genitals—are working from the same principle. Inorder to look for evidenceof a physically or biologically distinctive“gay”body,anadditionalassumptionisnecessary:thatthereisalsoadistinctive“non-gay”bodyfromwhichtodrawcomparisons.

This line of thinking has an exceptionally long history.Both theancient Romans and nineteenth-century Italian neurologist PaoloMontegazza,apparently independentlyofoneanother,proposed that“true” homosexualmales (menwho took on the receptive rolewithother men) could be explained by “an anatomical anomaly thatsometimes leads the final branches of the [genital] nerves to therectum; therefore its stimulation causes for the passives that genitalexcitement that in ordinary cases can be caused only through thegenitals.”[13] No such bodily anomaly has ever been documented.But the claim that “normal” men’s nervous systems arrangedthemselves properly in the penis, while abnormal men’s nervesarranged themselves in such a way that the anus became like thevagina—built to be penetrated, as it were—had a temptingpsychologicallogic.Thepossibilitythatthesensorynervesnormallypresent in the anus, rectum, and the prostate might be capable oftransmitting pleasurable sensation apparentlydid not occur toMontegazza. Along similar lines, historian of homosexuality GertHekma has found early nineteenth-century reports by Dutchphysicians claiming that men who engaged in anal intercourse hadanuses thatborderedon thevaginal, funnel-shapedandborderedby

80

delicate, hairless, skin analogous to the labia minora in women.Heterosexual men, on the other hand, were said to have “normal”anuses.

Such comparison tactics have not been limited to the territorybelow the belt. Pioneering Berlin sexologist and homosexual rightsdefender Magnus Hirschfeld, eager to prove a biological basis tohomosexuality in the hopes that it could be used to create a legaldefense, surveyed features like voice, musculature, height, weight,andsooninhundredsofsubjectstotrytofindevidenceofbiologicaldifferences betweenmale homosexual and heterosexual bodies. ThephysicaltraitsHirschfeldandhisfollowersrecorded,however,werenotassessedintermsofounces,megahertz,degreesofinclination,orthicknessofdermalfold,buton“directimpressionisticobservations,”meaningwhateversortofimpressiontheresearcherhadofthesubjectupon observing him directly. The angles at which subjects carriedtheirarms, thedistributionoffatontheirbodies, thepitchesof theirvoices,andmanyothercharacteristicswereassessedandlabelednotasaseriesofmeasurementsindegreesorinchesormegahertz,whichwould have been good scientific practice, but according towhetherthey struck the researcher’s sensibilities as being masculine orfeminine.[14] Hirschfield’s researchers were not the only ones toattemptthissortofresearch.Norweretheytheonlyonestofindthattheirdata,evenwiththebiastheyintroducedtoitthemselves,didnotsupport clear conclusions. Inevitably such studies produced nothinginmorecopiousquantity thanevidencethat therewerehomosexualswith “masculine” characteristics and heterosexuals with “feminine”ones.Thiswasvariously ignored,massagedout of the statistics, orsimplydeclaredirrelevant.

This is the sort of thing that happenswhen doxameets science.Thereisnothinginherentlyunscientificabouttheintersectionofdoxa—our beliefs about the world—and science. Indeed, the scientificprocess provides a genuinely useful and exceptionally sensiblemethodfortestingdoxaanddeterminingwhetherwhatwebelievetobe true about the observable and quantifiable world is indeed so.There isnothingunscientificaboutdesigningexperiments to test the

81

doxicbelief that ifaperson issexuallyunorthodoxordifferent, thisdifference will also exist in the person’s physical body. What isunscientificisdoingsuchexperimentationandthenbeingunwillingtoacceptresultsthatdidnotturnoutthewayyouthoughttheywould... or wanted them to. If you set out to test the doxa that humanbehavioralvariationmanifests itself in thephysicalbody, twoof thepossibleoutcomesofsuchtestingarethatitdoesnotatall,orthatitdoesnotdosopredictablyorreliably.Inscience,anegativeresultisjustasscientific,andjustasmeaningful,asapositiveresult.

Thetendencyforscientiststousephysicalandbiologicalsciencetotest principles derived from doxa or belief is, again, not inherentlyunscientific.Thetrickybitliesinhowawarescientistsareofthedoxathat influences their work. For instance, ideallyMagnusHirschfeldwouldhavebeenawarethathewasassumingthatheterosexualbodiesmanifestedadistinctive setofgenderedcharacteristics (towhich thegendered characteristics of homosexual bodies could be compared).He would have realized that this was not an assumption he couldsimplymake,asascientist,becauseitmadeintuitivesensetohimasahuman being. Without actual observation and measurement of thecharacteristics of heterosexual bodies, he could not actually saywhether theydid manifest a distinctive set of gendered traits.Scientificallyspeaking,Hirschfeldfailedtoadequatelycharacterizehiscontrol because doxa led him to believe that he already kneweverythingheneededtoknow.Asitturnedout,hedidnot,andwhathisexperimentsprovedwithoutashadowofadoubtasaresultisthatintheabsenceofanadequatelycharacterizedcontrol, it isdifficult ifnotimpossibletomakemeaningfulcomparisons.

Asmuchdependsonwhetherthetoolsthescientistschoosetouseareappropriateforandcapableoftestingthethingsthescientistswanttotest.ReturningtoHirschfeld,wehavealreadynotedthathechosetouse “direct impressionistic observations” rather than variousstandardized units ofmeasurement. This, in large and unambiguous

82

form,is doxa showing up again: another way of saying “directimpressionistic observation” isI know it when I see it. One of thereasonsthatscientistsgenerallychoosetouseinstrumentsratherthantheirownsenses,andstandardizedunitsofmeasurementrather thandescriptive characterizations, is to eliminate this inbuilt potential forhumanbiasestoprejudicedata.

The last piece of the puzzle is whether the data scientists arecapableofgatheringisactuallyadequate toanswer thequestions thescientistsaretryingtoask.Becausedoxaisinmanywaysashorthandthatweuseformakingsenseofhowtheworldworks,itoftenblindsustohowcomplicatedsomethingsreallyare.Weareaccustomedtoan“everyoneknows”ideologyofsexualitythatisobviousandclear-cut:maleorfemale,straightorgay,kinkyorvanilla,sickorhealthy.Wearesimilarlyusedtoan“everyoneknows”thinkingaboutbodiesas being essentially mechanical collections of individual, well-understood components starting with DNA. The temptation is toassumethattherelationshipbetweenthebodyandsexualitymustbestraightforward and uncomplicated. After all, it doesn’tfeelcomplicatedwhenweexperienceit.This,asweshallsee,hasprovento be a particularly problematic assumption, sending us deeper anddeeperintoevermorespecializedanddetailedaspectsofthebodytotry to tease out how—and indeed whether—the physical, materialbodyisconnectedtothebehaviorsandexperiencesofsexuality.

THEESSENTIALINVERTTherearefewbetterdemonstrationsofthetensionsbetweensexdoxaand sex science than the biomedical approach to homosexualityknown as “sexual inversion.” For most of human history, littledistinction has been made between biological sex and gender. Theideaofasex“essence,”somemysteriousaspectofbiologicalsexthatcreatesthegenderedpersona,remainscommon.KarlUlrichs’stheoryof “inversion” is thebasisof this concept’smodern incarnation:hiscontention was that homosexual men were, in a sense,hermaphrodites;biologicalmaleswithafemale“essence,”apsycheorsoul that was inherently feminine. In various ways and to various

83

degrees,thisideathathomosexualityandbisexualityarecausedbyan“inversion” of a gendered “essence” that is either psychological orbiological remains pervasive,and at the center of much currentresearchintosexualorientation.

This is important to a history of heterosexuality becauseheterosexualityisjustasimplicatedintheideaofsexualinversionashomosexuality. If sexuality is in fact a matter of whether all theinherent sexed aspects or qualities of a human being are properlymatched according to type, then this is just as relevant in terms ofwhatmakessomeoneaheterosexualas it is in termsofwhatmakessomeonenotaheterosexual.

Thehypothesisisstraightforward.Foroverahundredyearsnow,scientistshavelookedforbiologicalevidenceofsexual inversiononmultiplefrontsandhavefoundnoconclusiveevidencethatitexists.

The easiest, and hence both the earliest and commonest, way tosearch for proof of sexual inversion has involved that fine oldVictorian hobby, hunting for evidence of mismatches betweenbiology and gender. Feminized maleness, historically, created themost pressing sense of crisis.[15] The word “feminism,” in fact,originatednottodescribeapro-femalesociopoliticalmovementbutasa quasimedical termmeaning “feminization.” It showsup inFrenchsourcesfromthe1870sinwhichneurastheniaandhomosexualityarecitedasconsequencesofaman’sunfortunateféminisme.Homosexualmenhavebeenstereotypedasbothphysicallyandmentallyfeminine,limpwristed,“pretty,”andpronetogirlydisplaysofhighemotionandinterestinthedecorativearts,possiblysimultaneously.Asrecentlyas1995,BritishpsychiatristandsexologistRichardGreen,indiscussingthe links he believes to exist between gender identity andhomosexuality,famouslyquipped,“Barbiedollatfive,sexwithmenattwenty-five.”[16]

ThisallfitsinnicelywiththedoxaofthesexandgenderbinaryweinheritedfromourEnlightenmentandVictorianancestors,butwhatisactuallydemonstratedbythecurrentstateofplayinscientificresearchisnotsocutanddried.

Scienceseemstobeoftwomindsaboutwhetherbiologyislikely

84

to hold evidence of orientational destiny. On the one hand, noreputable scientist today will argue, for instance, that heterosexualmenaremorevirileandhairierthantheirgaybrothers,orthatlesbianwomen are by nature more muscular and sexually aggressive thanstraight women, although at one point both these notions wereaccepted as true. Researchers freely acknowledge that there is anextensivelaundrylistofphysicalandbehavioraltraitsthatwereoncebelievedtobelinkedtosexualorientationbut thathavebeenprovennot to be.At the same time, they continue to seek evidence for adistinctive “homosexual body” that deviates somehow from the“normal” body that heterosexuals are still presumed, yet still not infactproven, topossess.Within just the last tenyears,genes,brains,hormones, and even bits like fingers, ears, and hair have all comeunder the scrutiny of scientists searching for some sort of bodilytelltaleofsexualorientation.

This search for distinctive evidence of sexual orientation in thebody itself has followed a telling—and scientifically sensible—pattern.Wheneveronepartofthebodyoraspectofphysicalfunctionfailstoprovideatelltalediagnostic,thescientistslooksomeplaceelse.When appearance, gross external anatomy, and characteristics likevoicesfailedtoproducethedesiredevidence,as theydidquiteearlyon,scientistsbegan to turn theirgaze inward.Aidedbyadvances inchemistry,microscopy,surgery,andevermorespecializedtoolsandtechnologies, biomedical scientists have proceeded to look at eversmallerandevermoredeeplyinternalpartsofthebody.

Whether or not this will succeed in revealing any differencesbetweengaybodiesandstraightbodiesremainstobeseen.Onethingitdefinitelydoessucceedatdoing,however,ismakingitmuchmoredifficultforlaypeopletoevaluatethevalidityofscientificclaimsmadeabout the relationship between the body and sexuality. How manypeople who aren’t neurologists are sufficiently aware of what ahypothalamusevenistobeabletoguesswhethersomeonewhotellsusthatthereisadistinctively“gay”hypothalamusislikelytoberightor wrong? We certainly do not have any sense of our ownhypothalamus,oranyconsciousawarenessof it; its influencesupon

85

us are silent and unseen, and essentially irrelevant to ourworkadaysenseofself.Asscientistshavetakenthesearchforthedistinctivelygaybodytothesetiny,unfamiliar,andinaccessiblearenas,thepublichas had little choice but to trust these very privileged and franklyesotericviewpoints.Wehavesufficientexperienceasbodyexpertstobe able to questionwhether a scientist who claims that all lesbianshave excessive facial hair ismaking an accurate statement.When itcomes to the interior of the brain, or the genome, or the endocrinesystem,ontheotherhand,wearemuchmorelikelytotrustwhatwearetold.Wesimplydon’thavetheexperiencetoargue.

Thehistoryofbiomedicalresearchintosexualorientationsuggestsstronglythatregardlessofourlackofexperience,wewoulddowellto be very stingy and very skeptical with our trust.As a researchparadigm,thesearchforbiologicalmarkersofsexualorientationhasyet to produce any sturdy positive results.Most of the results thathavebeenproducedinthissearchhavebeennegative:givenwhatweknow so far, sexual orientation doesnot appear to be directly orcausallyconnectedtothephysicalbody.Theprocessesbywhichwehavelearnedthishave,however,notbeenbenign.

In theearly twentiethcentury, thenewlydiscoveredbiochemicalscalled hormones and the endocrine glands that produced themwereexcitingnewsubjectsforresearch.Itwasknownthathormones,andparticularly sex hormones, had a great influence on the body, andmany doctors were experimenting with “glandular extracts,”sometimes taken frompigs andmonkeys, as therapy for everythingfromimpotencetoaging.AustrianpathologistEugenSteinachjumpedaboard the hormone-therapy wagon with the contention thathomosexuality was due to a sort of intersexual condition in whichhomosexuals had sex-hormone glands that were the “opposite” ofwhatwasbiologicallytypical.

IfSteinachhadbeencorrectaboutthis,itwouldhavebeennothingshort of revolutionary, because it would have meant thatheterosexuality was created by a fairly straightforward organicmechanism.By extension, itwould also suggest that homosexualitycouldbefairlysimplyconvertedintoheterosexuality.Steinachandhis

86

followers tested their theory on humans, transplanting “normal-sexual” testicles into “invert” men. Clearly enamored of his ownseductivetheory,Steinachpronouncedtheproceduresasuccess.Onlylaterwouldheadmitthatthesurgerieshadbeenpointless,andthatthetransplantshadn’tchangedathing.

Thisdidnotdeterotherresearchersfrompursuingthesamelineofresearch. Sex hormones can, after all, strongly influence and evenalter patterns of sexual behavior in some, but not all, animals.HormonetherapywasaparticularlypopularlineofinquiryduringtheNazi regime, whose interest in eradicating homosexuality is wellknown. Danish physician Carl Vaernet, working for HeinrichH immler ,conducted hormone-pellet implantation studies onhomosexual men imprisoned at Buchenwald, hoping to transformthemintoheterosexuals.LikeSteinach’ssurgeries,Vaernet’sdidnotwork,andfor thesamereason: therewasnothing thathis techniquecouldfix.Hormonallyspeaking,menwhodesiremenarenodifferentfrom men who desire women. More importantly, human sexualitycannotbeledbythehormonalnose.Itiseasyenoughtomakeamalerat display female-typicalmating behaviors by fiddlingwith its sexhormones, or a female rat display male-typical ones, but humansexuality,surprisinglyenough,ismorecomplexthanarat’s.Notthatit would necessarily tell us anything about the origins ofhomosexualityifonecouldsubstantiallyalterhumansexualbehaviorviahormones.Justbecauseabehaviorcanbecompelledhormonallydoesnotmean the samebehaviormightnot exist forother reasons,withoutthehormonaltrigger,aswell.

Yetendocrinologistsstillhavenotstoppedlookingforahormonal“inversion” explanation for homosexuality. The search has simplygottennarrowerandmoreesoteric.Havinggottennowherewithadulthormone levels or gonad function, research now often focuses onpotential links between prenatal hormone exposure and adult sexualorientation.Muchofthephysicalandphysiologicalsexdifferentiationthatoccurswhenafetusisdevelopinghappensasaresultofitsbeingexposed tohormones in thewomb.Endocrinology researchershavepostulatedthathomosexualmenmightbecomehomosexualasaresult

87

of being exposed, as fetuses, either to particularly high levels of“female” hormones or else to conditions that compromise theirbodies’abilitytorespondnormallyto“male”hormones.(Inactualitytherearenosuchthingsas“male”or“female”hormones.Hormoneshavenosexoftheirown,andalltypesofsexhormonesarepresentinallhumanbeings invaryingamounts.)Thishypothesis relieson thesameoldinversionparadigm:agaymaleisgaybecauseheisinsomeway(s)notmale.

Anatomical research has similarly shrunk its scope and retreatedintoeversmallerandharder-to-seearenas.Thecurrentlypopularbodypart inwhich tohunt for abiological tokenofgayness is thebrain.Likeendocrineresearch,brainresearchtoohasagrimhistoryintermsof experimental “treatment” based on unproven scientificconjecture.In the early 1970s, surgeons proceeding on the basis of theoriesespousedby leadingGermanresearcherGünterDörnerattempted tocurehomosexualityinseveralmenbyburningoutthealleged“sexualcenter” of the central hypothalamus. The surgeries caused severepersonalitydisturbances,andwereonlyhaltedbecauseother leadingresearchers,likesexologistVolkmarSigusch,publiclycriticizedtheirinhumanity. To the biomedical world’s credit, such humanexperimentationisonthewane,buthasnotcompletelyvanished.

There aremany reasons that it can be difficult to trust, let alonedefend, the ongoing search for a biology of sexual orientation.Perhaps thehardestpill toswallow,however, is thateven ifwedidsuddenlyfindourselveswithindisputablepositiveevidenceofalinkbetweenthephysicalbodyandsexualorientation,it islikelythatwewouldstilllackthesciencetomakesenseofit.Theleapfrombiologytobehaviorisabigone,andwesimplydonotknowverymuchabouthow it works. If we found a “straight gene” tomorrow, we stillwouldn’tbeabletoexplainhowwegetfromthecreationofspecificproteins—whichisallthatDNAiscapableofinstructingthebodytodo—to a complicated, highly variable complex of behaviors likeheterosexuality.Atthisstage,oursciencecannotevenfigureoutwhatcausessomepeopletobeleft-handedwhileothersareright-handed,amuchsimplercharacteristicthansexualorientationbyfar.Ourhubris

88

inthinkingthatwewouldbeabletomakesenseofaphysicaltelltaleofsexualorientationifonewerefoundiseverybitasentrenchedasourcertainty that theremustbesucha thingassexualorientation inthefirstplace.Thisis,Isubmit,nocoincidence.

LIFESCIENCEWhydoresearcherscontinue,despitesomuchnegativeevidence, tohunt for proof that sexual orientation has a material or physicalcomponent?For thatmatter,whydomaterial and biological sciencecontinue to assert that heterosexuality and homosexuality are evensubjectsthataresuitedtobeingexploredinmaterialandbioscientificways?Oneanswerislife.

The anthropic principle, one of science’s foundationalphilosophical conceits, is the underlying theme that unifies thewayscience approaches heterosexuality and the subject of sexualorientationingeneral.Inanutshell, theanthropicprinciplemaintainsthat since weare alive and able to observe the natural universe, thenaturaluniversemust thereforebe setup so that life canexist.Thismayseemtobejustacasualtautology,butitalsopacksastronghitofteleology:it implies that life is thepurposeof theuniverse.If this isour starting point, in terms of studying the natural world, thenwhatever exists that does not appear to contribute directly to theexistenceorcontinuationofliferequiressomesortofexplanation.

This plays out in science in any number of ways.We look, forexample,forlife-affirmingrationalestojustifytheexistenceofthingsthat seem hostile or dangerous. Nettles have stingers because itprotects themfrombeingeatenso theycan liveout their lifecycles,forestfireshelpcertainspeciesofplantstopropagatetheirseeds,andnaturally occurring minerals that are lethal to us in quantity, likeseleniumorevencommontablesalt,arealsothingsourbodiesrequireintinyquantitiesorwebecomesickanddie.Ineachcase,wecanfindananthropicrationale,andineachcasewecanreassureourselvesthattheseunpleasantandharmfulthings—nettlestings,forestfires,toxicminerals—areredeemedbyhavinglife-promotingqualities.

WhenDarwin’s theoriesofnaturalandsexualselectionexploded

89

into themid-nineteenthcentury, theyintensifiedandlent justificationto this feeling that life itself is,and indeed inasenseshouldbe, theprimemotivatorbehindnature’sworkings.OnTheOriginofSpecies,publishedin1852,snappedtheanthropicprincipleintoadistinctivelybiologicalfocus:

Owing to this struggle for life,anyvariation,however slightandfromwhatevercauseproceeding,ifitbeinanydegreeprofitabletoan individualof any species, in its infinitely complex relations toother organic beings and to external nature, will tend to thepreservationof that individual, andwill generallybe inheritedbyitsoffspring.Theoffspring,also,willthushaveabetterchanceofsurviving, for, of themany individuals of any specieswhich areperiodically born, but a small number can survive. I have calledthis principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, ispreserved, by the term ofNatural Selection, in order tomark itsrelationtoman’spowerofselection.[17]

At a stroke, any variance between one creature and its neighborbecamesomething that could spell success or failure in the all-important struggle. Darwin was careful to point out that evolutionhappened at the level of populations, not at the level of individuals,but themessage the public took awaywas that individual traits andindividual variation were directly, immediately responsible for thefutureofsociety.

ArrivingatatimewhenWesternculturewasstrugglinghardwithorder and hierarchy, Darwinian ideas offered a psychological,emotional, and political compass with which to navigate thethreateninglyanarchicnineteenthcentury.Industrialism,urbanization,global expansion, and colonization all threatened to unseat thepriorities of the status quo, and the rise of empirical science as anauthorityhadunderminedthenotionoftheGreatChainofBeing.Initsplace,however,thinkingmenandwomencouldplacetheirtrustintheanthropicprincipleandtheDarwinianascentofman: thegoalofCreationwaslife,andthegoaloflifewastocontinuallyimproveits

90

survivalandsuccess.In this brave new evolutionary world, anatomy, physiology,

anthropology, and many other disciplines indulged in shamelesssocial Darwinism. The darkest-skinned, least technological peopleswere proposed as evolutionary “missing links.” African women’spelviseswerecompared,byanatomists,tothoseofgorillasandotherapes.[18] Leading surgeon and early anthropologist Paul Broca notonly claimed that black-skinned, wooly-haired people had never“spontaneouslyarrivedatcivilization”butwarnedthatbackhomeinthecivilizedworld,womencallingformoreequaltreatmentshouldbecarefullymonitored, sincedisruption in the socialorder “necessarilyinduces a perturbation in the evolution of races.” [19] James Hunt,founder of theAnthropologicalSocietyofLondon, openly intendedthework of his society to show “that human equality is one of themostunwarrantableassumptionsever inventedbyman.”Success intheDarwinian struggle, these authoritieswerequite clear,meant thebourgeoiswhiteAnglo-Europeanstatusquo.

Heterosexuality was part of this status quo. Not only was itsociallynormative;itwasbiologicallycritical.Sexualactivitybetweenmale and female partners is perhaps the easiest possible thing toexplainbythelightsoftheanthropicprinciple.Ithasthepotentialtocreatelife.This,inturn,istheprocessbywhichevolutionisenabled,andthusitsimportanceisself-explanatory.Itisnowonderthatwhenatermcamealongthatseemedtocontainthewholedynamicprocess—“heterosexual”—itwas accepted quickly, quietly, and completely.Anditisevenlessofawonderthat,untilveryrecentlyindeed,thereseemedtobenoreasontostudytheeverydaycouplingsofmenandwomenatall:theirpurposewasself-evident.

Itwashomosexuality,withitsapparentdisregardoftheanthropicprinciple, that demanded scientific attention.How could it serve thecontinuance of life to have members of a species who are, as ourcultureassertsistrueofhomosexuals,generallydisinclinedtoengagein potentially procreative sex?Even ifwe assume that homosexualsaretheonlyhumanswhoareinclinedtoengageinnonprocreativesex—a brash assumption!—this is a problematic question.

91

Heterosexualityisnotequaltoconception;conceptionisnotequaltolife.Reproductivelyspeaking,thingsfailtohappenatleastasoftenasthey succeed. But the anthropic principle is powerful doxa andpowerfuldogma:lifeissacred.Science,religion,andourownanimalexistencecombinetoencourageustobelievethatlifeitselfisitsownraison d’être. Little wonder that we have customarily excusedheterosexualityfromitsturnbeneaththemicroscope.

Thetruthis thatwestilldon’tknowwhether“sexualorientation”anditssubtypescanactuallybesaidtoexistfromtheperspectiveofscience.As Wendell Ricketts wrote, “No one knows exactly whyheterosexualsandhomosexualsoughttobedifferent,andtheblatanttautologyofthehypothesesappearstohaveescapedcarefulattention:heterosexualsandhomosexualsareconsidereddifferentbecausetheycanbedividedintotwogroupsonthebasisofthebeliefthattheycanbedividedintotwogroups.”[20]

Ifwewanttoknowwhynaturalsciencehasnottoldusmoreaboutheterosexuality, we need to ask whether natural science is actuallycapable of doing so.What scientific evidencewe have been able togatherinregardtosexualorientationsuggeststhat“heterosexual”and“homosexual”may simplynotbequalities that exist in the realmofmaterialphenomenaoccurringspontaneouslyinnature.Thisdoesnotmean theydon’texist. It justmeans that theymaynotexistaswhatare called “natural kinds,” the groups of things that equally andidentically share particular physical attributes, and equally andidenticallyare affected by natural laws and are thus appropriatesubjects for physical science: electrons, diamonds, quadrupeds,anaerobicbacteria,amputees.

Peopleofdifferingsexualorientations,on theotherhand,donotseemtohavephysicalattributes thatdiffer inways thatmapto theirsexualorientations,andthusdonotseemtobedifferentlyaffectedbynaturallawsonthatbasiseither.Sexualorientationsseemtobealotmore like what philosopher of science Edward Stein calls “socialhuman kinds.”[21] Social human kinds are groupings of humanbeings based on common social factors: Democrats, vegetarians,Frenchmen, athletes,Catholics.What this suggests is that the social

92

sciences may have more meaningful things to tell us about theorganizingprinciplewecall sexualorientation than thephysical andbiomedical sciences can. Sociology, anthropology, political science,and economics should all be very useful in helping us understandmore about heterosexuality andhow itworks.Leaving the studyofheterosexuality, and of sexual orientation generally, to the socialsciencesmaybedifficultforaculturewhosedoxastillholdsthatonlythenaturalsciencespossesstrulyimpartialauthority.Itmay,however,notonlyprovetobethemostintellectuallyhonestpath,butthemostscientificallyrigorousaswell.

93

CHAPTERFOUR

TheMarryingType

Single women, decreed the anonymous author of the vicious andpopular 1713Satyr Upon Old Maids, were “the Devil’s Dish,”“nasty,rank,rammy,filthySluts.”Sogrotesquewerethesespinsters,Satyr continued, that they ought to hurl themselves intomatrimonywithwhoever they could find to take them, even idiots, lechers, orlepers,sothattheycouldavoidbeing“piss’donwithContempt”fortheirunseemly,unwomanly,inappropriatesingleness.[1]

By1962,wellbeforetheso-called“sexualrevolution”oreventhefeminist slogan “a woman without a man is like a fish without abicycle,”HelenGurleyBrowncouldwriteinSexandtheSingleGirl,“Ithinkmarriageisinsurancefortheworstyearsofyourlife.Duringyour best years you don’t need a husband.You do need aman ofcourseeverystepoftheway,buttheyareoftencheaperemotionallyandalotmorefunbythedozen.”

Clearly,somethingmajorchangedbetween1713and1962.Butitwasn’t just a shift in attitudes about single women. Thetransformation of the unmarried woman, from repellent, ridiculousfreak to savvy, sophisticated bachelorette, could bemore accuratelyviewedasanindicatoroffarlargeranddeeperchangesinhowpeopleofallsexesthoughtaboutandexperiencedheterosexuality.Onewaytounderstandwhatwasgoingonistolookatmarriage,thedefiningissue for bothSatyr andSex and the Single Girl, which, as socialconservativesnever tire of reminding us, has historically been thecanonical,form-conferringrelationshiptypeofheterosexuality.

How, indeed, didwe get fromSatyr toHelenGurleyBrown, orforthatmatter,toevenlesseconomicallyandsociallyheteronormativenon-marrying rolemodels likeOprahWinfrey?Once,marriagewas

94

socentraltoexpectationsofthelifetrajectorythatthosewhofailedtomarry (and it seems consistently that around 10 percent did not,typically for reasonsbeyond theircontrol)couldbeopenlymocked,harassed, and perhaps even arrested and imprisoned.[2] Now, notonlydobothmenandwomenregardmarriageaspartofastrategyofpersonalfulfillment,justasHelenGurleyBrowncounseledallthoseyears ago, but they can consider it separately fromother sourcesofpersonal fulfillment like sexual activity, making a living, or havingchildren.Theformsweexpectintimatepersonalrelationshipsbetweenmenandwomentotake,therolesweexpectthemtofulfill,andwhatwe’veexpectedthemtodoforushavechangeddramatically.Thishasoccurred thanks to three major arenas of cultural change, allessentially issues of individual (and especially female) autonomy intermsofsubjectivedesire,civicidentity,andreproduction.

TOMARRYACCORDINGTOYOURDESIREDesire,asanyteenagercantellyou,isawildandvariegatedride.Ourdesires can be reasoned or impulsive, fleeting or steadfast, and forthingsorpeople,sensationsorpossessions,experiencesoremotions.Desireisalso,asBuddhismremindsusinonewayandconsumerisminanother,aconstantofthehumancondition.

ContemporaryWesterncultureisaculturesteepedinanddrivenbyindividual desires. It has come to seemutterly logical thatmarriage,foremost of all our human relationships, be based in desire,specifically in emotional and sexual desire.But this has not alwaysbeen thecase.Formostofhumanhistory,desireandmarriagehavenot hadmuch to dowith one another.Marriagewas an obligation.Wantingtomarry,andevenwantingtomarryaparticularperson,hadlittleornothingtodowithit.

Eroticdesireinparticularwasnotseenastrulyrelevanttomarriageuntil the twentieth century. Historically, it simply does not seem tohavebeenviewedasaparticularlybigconcern,especiallyforwomen.Itwas taken for granted thatmen andwomenwould be capable offulfilling their reproductive duties in marriage. Beyond that, thereseemstohavebeenmuchmoreconcernaboutmakingsurethatsexual

95

behaviorwasnotexcessiveorsinfulthantherewasanyworryaboutwhetheritwasofasufficientlyhighquality.Wedon’thaveanywayofknowinghowmostmarriedmenandwomenfeltaboutoneanothersexually. Itseemsreasonable toassume that the rangeofsentimentsranthecompletehumangamut,fromenthusiasticloveandpassiontoboredom and alienation, and inevitably in some cases to fear andtrauma. But very few people left any sort of record of their sexuallivesat all. Inmost cases allweknow is thatmostmarriedcouplesmanaged to get it on, and we only know this because they hadchildren.Theywereonlydoingwhattheyhadto:notfornothingwasspousalsex,particularlyinsofarasitcalledforthewifetosubmittothehusband’ssexualneeds,called“payingthemarriagedebt.”

Ifweare to talkaboutmarriage in theWestprior to thepast fewcenturies,wecanassume that sexualactivitywas included,but lust,desire,pleasure,andasenseoftheeroticwerenotnecessarilypartofthepicture.Nordidmarriageimplyromanticlove.Priortothemodernera, marriage was a social, an economic, and frequently also areligious obligation, but whether or not it would or should beanythingelse inadditionwasnotan issueonwhicheveryonecouldagree. Should a spouse be capable of fulfilling one’s wants forfriendship, warmth, sympathy, and affection, or were these thingsunnecessary to the serious business of marriage? Did it matterwhether a betrothed person actually liked his or her spouse-to-be,foundhimorhertobecharmingorsympatheticoramusing?Shouldyou actuallydesire the person towhomyouwerebetrothed?Thesewereseriousanddivisivequestions.

Formuchofhumanhistory,theprocessofacquiringaspousewasmuchmorelikewhatwe’dexperiencetodayinmakinganewhire.Itwas a choicemade by committee, for one thing. The potential newspouseusuallygotavote,butsheorhedidnotalwayshaveaveto.Candidates were usually selected by parents, near relatives, andvariousneighborsandfriends,notsomuchonthebasisofpersonalqualitiesorlooks—itwasassumedthatanyreasonablepersoncouldfillthebill,justasweassumewithregardtonewcoworkers—butonthesolidityoftheirqualifications.Fortheelitesthismeantlineageand

96

title, expectations of inheritance, and land. For the rank and file,qualifications were less glamorous: a man needed skills or a trade,perhaps access to a family farm or workshop.A woman likewisewould not be a good catch unless she toowas known to be hard-working, skilled,healthy, andcapableof cooking,gardening, caringforanimals,milking,sewing,andinnumerableotherresponsibilities.Justaswedon’twantnewcoworkerswhohavetohavetheirhandsheldthrougheverynewjobresponsibility,ourancestorsdidn’twantspouses who couldn’t hit the ground running. Character and goodstanding in thecommunitycounted fora lot, too, althoughmenandwomenwereheldtodifferentstandards.Ideallyanewspousewouldalso bring good connections. Perhaps a new bride’s family hadgrazing rights that the husband’s family would now be entitled toshare. Maybe a new husband’s family owned a shipping barge,meaningexpansionpossibilitiesforthebride’sfamilybusiness.

All these thingswere important in a spouse. Lovewas not.Ourforemothersandforefathersdidn’texpecttobeinlove,oreventofallinlove,withtheirspousesanymorethanweexpecttofindaninstantbestfriendinanewcoworker.Awifewasnotaman’sbestfriend,letalonehislover.Allthewayuptotheturnofthetwentiethcenturyitwastypicallyconsideredshamefultotreatone’swife“asonewouldamistress.” Spouses had a purpose, but the purpose was primarilypragmatic.ColonialAmericanpreacherJohnCottonwasplainspokenabout the utility of the marital relationship: “Women are CreatureswithoutwhichthereisnocomfortableLivingforman...itistrueofthemwhatiswonttobesaidofgovernments,thatbadonesarebetterthannone.”YetCottondidnotregardwivesthemselvesasautilitytobe taken for granted. “They are a sort of Blasphemers then whodespiseanddecrythemandcallthemanecessaryEvil,”hecontinued,“for they areanecessaryGood; such as itwas not good thatmanshouldbewithout.”[3]Menneededwives;womenneededhusbands.The relationship was reciprocal, interdependent, and mutual. Asteammates,theycouldexpecttogrowtoknowoneanotherwelland,with some luck, become fondofone another.But their primary jobwasnot tobeaffectionate.Their jobwas tostart, run,maintain,and

97

supportanewbranchofthefamily.But of course coworkers do sometimes fall for one another, and

somemarried couples did too. The evidence for this is not alwayscrystal clear. Praise for a spouse engraved on a tombstone, forinstance, might or might not reflect the existence of an affectionaterelationship between spouses while both were alive. It does seem,however,thatatleastsomemarriedmenandwomenexperiencedthekindofemotionalanderoticcombinationplatterwerefertowhenwetalk,thesedays,about“beinginlove.”Buttheywerenotnecessarilyin the majority, and neither was passionate emotion for a spousealwaysseenasagoodthing.Plutarch,thegreatchroniclerofthelateRoman republic, repeatedly ridiculed the legendary military leaderPompey for his “effeminate” public displays of affection for hisfourthwife(andJuliusCaesar’sdaughter),Julia.Thiswasn’tmerelyRoman machismo talking, but a demonstration of an ideal thatpersisted for well over fifteen hundred years. Historian MarilynYalom describes the ideal of marital affection throughout most ofWestern history as being “affection in harmony with duty andreason.”As theLady’sMagazine lectured its English readership in1774, “The intent of matrimony is not for man and his wife to bealwaystakenupwitheachother,butjointlytodischargethedutiesofcivilsociety,togoverntheirfamilieswithprudence,andeducatetheirchildrenwithdiscretion.”Even in theeighteenthcentury,as the ideathat affection and even passionate lovemight have a role to play inmarriagewascomingintoageneralifoftengrudgingacceptance,suchthingswereunderstoodtobeacceptableonlywithinlimits.

Asdifficultasitmaybeforustobelievetoday,particularlyifwehave had the seemingly involuntary, overwhelming experience of“fallinginlove,”anthropologicalandhistoricalevidencebothsuggestthatfallingin loveisnotactuallysomethinghumanbeingsarehard-wired todobutabehaviorpattern that is learned. Incultureswherethere isnosignificantculturalpatternofexperiencingromantic love,mostpeopledonot.SuchapatterndidultimatelydevelopintheWest,butformostofourhistoryitwasnotpartoftheeverydayexperienceoftheaverageperson.

98

Itshouldnot,therefore,besurprisingthatthequestionofwhetherlove should have any meaningful role in people’s lives, andparticularly in their marriages, could be hotly controversial.RomeoandJuliet,aswemodernssometimesmustbereminded,isatragedy.Early feministMaryWollstonecraftwasnot alone inher sentimentswhen shewrote,in her 1792AVindicationoftheRightsofWoman,“Love is, in a great degree, an arbitrarypassion, andwill reign likesomeotherstalkingmischiefs,byitsownauthority,withoutdeigningtoreason....Inthechoiceofahusband[women]shouldnotbeledastray by the qualities of a lover—for a lover the husband, evensupposinghimtobewiseandvirtuous,cannotlongremain.”Notfornothing did phrases like “hewhomarries for love has good nightsand bad days” and insults like “cunt-struck,” the eighteenth-centuryequivalentofsayingthatsomeonewasthinkingwithhisdick,surviveintotheVictorianage.

Romanticpassion, inotherwords,wasnot always, and certainlynot automatically, considered a reasonable basis onwhich to base amarriage. But in order for romantic love to even be an option as arequirement for marriage, another door had to be opened first:unmarriedpeople had to be routinelypermitted to choose their ownmarriagepartnersfortheirownreasons.

Thisseeminglyelementarystep,sobasictothewaywethinkaboutmarriagetoday,radicallytransformedtheinstitution.Anthropologistsandhistoriansrefer to thisas theshift from“traditional”—marriagesarranged primarily for social and economic reasons—to“companionate”marriages. “Companionate”marriages are based oncompanionship between partners, including the idea that bothmembers of a married pair should be at least emotionally well-disposedtowardoneanother.

Companionate marriage arguably grew out of the ProtestantReformation. Martin Luther, himself a former Augustinian monk,thoroughlydismissed theelementalCatholiccontention thatvirginityandcelibacycountedformoreintermsofholinessandvirtuethanthemarriedstate.Healsobelievedthatmarriagewasgoodformorethanjust what traditional Catholic theology claimed for it, namely the

99

production of legitimate children and the avoidance of fornication.Protestants,verymuchincludingMartinLuther,arguedthatmarriagewasaholystateinandofitself.UsingtheexampleofAdamandEve,hearguedthatmarriagewaspartofGod’sintentionforhumankind.

The idea caught on. In 1549, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer,architectofHenryVIII’smanymarriagesaswellasthesplitbetweentheCatholicChurchandtheChurchofEngland,wrotethisessentiallyProtestant point of view into the firstAnglican Book of CommonPrayer. To the traditional two marriage goods the Catholic Churchacknowledged,Cranmeraddeda third.Marriage,hewrote,ought toprovidespouseswith“mutualsociety,helpandcomfort,thattheoneoughttohaveoftheother,bothinprosperityandinadversity.”Thisdid notmerely allow butmandated that the subjective responses ofspousestooneanotherbeaconsiderationinmarriage.Spousesweretobemore than justbossandunderling in thebusinessofmarriageandchildren.Theywerealsotobefriends,sympathizers,supporters,andprovidersofaffection.Spousesdidn’thavetobeinlovebyanymeans, andCranmer probablywould’ve found the idea distressing.Buttheydidhavetobeinsomekindoflike.

Itwouldbeimpossibletoimagineeithercontemporarymarriageorcontemporaryheterosexualitywithout this.Thecoreassumption thatindividual desires and personal connection arewhat drive people toseek out one another for emotional and sexual relationships is anintegralpartofhowweconceivenot justourownexperienceswithromanticandsexualrelationships.Theyarealsoafundamentalpartofourdoxaofwhatrelationshipsareandhowtheywork.[4]Ifmenandwomenmatedautomaticallyandinevitably,asmanyanimalsdowhentheygointoestrusandrut,thenwhatindividualswantedemotionallyoreroticallywouldn’treallymakemuchdifference.In the traditionalmarriagemodel,thisistheunderlyingassumption:matingisthepointoftheexercise,andhowonefeelsaboutitisoflessimportancethangetting the job done. But if relationships betweenmen andwomenlegitimately included expectations of mutual, pleasant, sociableengagement; practical support; and emotional reassurance—or“society,help,andcomfort”—thensuddenly,theactualorprospective

100

partnersbecamefit judgesofwhetherornot thesecriteriaweremet.Whether a spouse, or amarriage,was satisfactorywas no longer adecision that could adequately bemade solely by the consensus ofparentsandrelatives.Thefeelingsof thepotentialspousesstartedtomatter.

Marriagecriteriadidnotchangeovernight.Althoughover time,apotentialspouse’sprospectsandsocialstandingmatteredless,wealthandstatusstillcountedforquiteabit.AsJaneAustentelegraphedsoefficientlyinthefamousopeninglineofPrideandPrejudice: “Itisatruthuniversallyacknowledged,thatasinglemaninpossessionofagoodfortunemustbeinwantofawife.”Buttheywerenolongerallthatmattered.Emotionsnowmatteredtoo.Ourexpectationsofwhatmarriage andmale-female relationships in generalwere supposed tobehavenevergoneback.

Thechangetookholdnotsomuchbecauseitwassomuchmoredramatically fulfilling to individual married people—it could hardlyhavebeenuniformlyso,giventhatit isn’teventoday.Butitofferedthepromise of personal fulfillment, and in sodoing it reflected andpersonalizedpotentpoliticalandphilosophicalmovementsofthetime.NotonlydiditreflectProtestantism’semphasisontheimportanceandworthofmarriage(asentimentthatevensomeleadingCatholics,likeErasmus, heartily agreedwith), but this concentration on happinessandthesatisfactionofindividualdesirewasalsoperfectlyinlinewithemergingnotionsofindividualismandtheideaofpersonalhappinessasanethicalandcivicgood.Thisnascentideologyhadmanysourcesacross the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Jeremy Bentham’s(and,later,JohnStuartMill’s)utilitarianism,JohnLocke’stheoryofproperty,Adam Smith’s early ideals of a self-regulating capitalismbasedontheindividualdesireforprofit.InAmerica,theprécisofthisphilosophywithwhichwe aremost familiar is Thomas Jefferson’sbold statement in the Declaration of Independence of the threeinalienable rights of man as “life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness.”[5]Whetherinpolitics,citizenship,orone’spersonallife,happinessisnothingifnotsubjective.

At least as much as the Enlightenment’s obsession with science

101

and empiricism, this new focus on happiness—personal andsubjectivefulfillment—helpederodeolder,generallyreligiousnotionsof how thoughts and actions should be calibrated and judged.Ashistorian Roy Porter put it, “Formerly a sin, self-centeredness wasbeing transformed into theraisond’être, theprideandglory,of themodern psyche; thanks to the ‘cunning of history,’ Christian self-denial was thus giving way to the urge—even the ‘right’—to self-expression.”[6]Itwouldsoonseeminevitableandlogicalthatpeoplewould marry whom they desired, and that the notion of arrangedmarriage would seem old-fashioned, presumptive, and invasive.Beforelong,extremelyself-expressivepracticesofromanticloveandsexual pleasurewould not only emerge from the shadows but leapaggressivelytothetopofthelistofmaritalandrelationshippriorities.

On the basis of the new precept that individual emotionalfulfillmentwas a proper part of marriage, individual and intenselysubjectivereactionsandemotionsfirstchallenged,thendominatedtheearlier consensus criteria for choosing a partner. Relationshipswiththeothersexcouldbecome,asGurleyBrownputit,“morefunbythedozen,” because the fulfillment of personal desires had become alegitimatemotivationtoenterintorelationshipsinthefirstplace.

TOBEONE’SOWNMASTER“Ifabsolutesovereigntybenotnecessaryinastate,howcomesit tobesoinafamily?”askedEnglishwriterMaryAstellin1700.“Orifinafamily,whynotinastate;sincenoreasoncanbealleg’dfortheonethatwillnotholdmorestronglyfortheother?”[7]Itwasagoodquestion. The rising sense that the individual had a right to certainkindsofsovereigntyin lifepromptedmanyenlightenmentwriters towonderjustwhohadtherighttoholdauthorityoverothers,andwhy.

Rebellionagainstestablishedauthoritywasaconstantmotifoftheage.FromCromwell’sbloodylegacytothestormingoftheBastille,thecoronationofWilliamandMary to thePhiladelphiaConvention,the Enlightenment was bookended by political and philosophicalrevolution. Underpinning it all lay the distinctly humanist spirit ofreformthathadfueledtheReformation.[8]

102

Questionsofrights, liberties,andethicalauthoritywerecentral totheEnlightenment.Butsowasthequestionofwhowastohavetheserights and liberties andwhy.Newpracticesbasedon idealsof civilrights, universal citizenship, representative government, andegalitarianismbegan tobeservedupoutof theuneasycauldronsofrevolution, but portions were by no means ladled out equally. Oldhabitsdiehard;evenafter theFrenchandAmericanrevolutionsandthetriumphofparliamentarianisminEngland,evenafterdeCondorcetand “allmen shall be created equal,”most people’s positions in thesocialpeckingorderdidnotchangemuch.Women,children,thepoor,and ethnic minorities remained at the bottom of the heap. It wasalmost business as usual, but there was one crucial difference:baseless inequalitywas no longer so easy to defend as it once hadbeen. MaryAstell and many others like her took up the cause ofapplyingEnlightenment egalitarianism as equally as its philosophiesimplied.

Over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, thisreformist mood manifested in multiple philosophical, moral, andpolitical agendas. The massive and ultimately triumphant abolitionmovementgrewoutof thecombinationofrevolutionarypoliticsandthestronglyantiauthoritarianevangelicalProtestantismofgroupslikethe Quakers.What is now considered the “first wave” ofWesternfeminism arose from the same fertile ground. Not only overtlyfeministwomen likeMaryWollstonecraft but popular novelists likeDaniel Defoe openly and graphically compared women’s lot inmarriage to slavery.Our friendMaryAstell held forth on the issuewith typicallyvehementclarity:“IfallMenareborn free, how is itthat all Women are born slaves? As they must be if the beingsubjected to theinconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary Will ofMen,betheperfectConditionofSlavery?”

TheEnlightenmentwas,inotherwords,awareofitsownsexism.Buttherewasnothinglikeuniversalagreementthatthissexismwasaproblem.Many, in fact, enthusiastically defended it. LordHalifax’sbest-sellingAdvice to a Daughter, first published in 1668 andenjoyingitsseventeentheditionin1791,wasquicktoremindreaders

103

that,inmarriageandinlife,womenandmenwerenowherenearequaland should not expect to be: “You must first lay it down for afoundationingeneral,thatthereisinequalityinthesexes,andthatforthebetter economyof theworld, themen,whowere tobe the law-givers,hadthelargershareofreasonbestoweduponthem,bywhichmeans your sex is the better prepared for the compliance that isnecessaryforthebetterperformanceofthosedutieswhichseemtobemostproperlyassignedtoit.”

Tobesure,thiswaspreciselytheattitudetomaleandfemalerolesin marriage that was enshrined by law and custom throughout theWest. The legal convention throughout Europe, Britain, and in theNewWorld was that ofcoverture, a principlemeaning, in essence,that when a woman married, her legal and civil personhood was“covered”byherhusband.Inpracticethismeantthatwomenhadnorights or liberties unless their husbands permitted them . . . and ahusband’s permissions could be revoked at any time. Outside ofspeciallegalcircumstances,whichwererare,husbandscontrolledallproperty and earnings in their households, regardless of who hadearned or brought them into the family. Men had sole, bindingauthorityoverwhathappenedtofamilyresourcesandwereentitledtomake executivedecisions regarding children and other dependentswithout necessarily having to consult their wives. If a husbandwantedtosellthefamily’shouseandsellthechildrenintoindenturedservitudeinafarawaycity,therewaslittleawifecoulddoexceptbegandplead.Coverturecreatedsomeliabilitiesformen.Theycould,forinstance, be held liable for crimes committed by theirfemmescouverts, because the law presumed that whatever wives did wasdoneunderahusband’sdirection.Butonthewhole,covertureofferedmen almost complete ownership of theirwives. Even rapewas notrecognizedwithinmarriage.Ahusbandandwifewere“oneperson”under the law, thus anywifewho refused to pay themarriage debtwas depriving him of access to something he already owned.Howcoulditbewrongforhimtoseizewhatwasalreadyhis?

There were sometimes exceptions to coverture. Unmarried orwidowedwomenwerefemmessoles,solitarywomen,technically(but

104

usuallynotpractically)legallyequivalenttomen.Buttheywererare,andoftenother lawsexistedthatreplacedcoverturewithanarrayofother restrictions on where they could live, work, and socialize. Invarious towns in late medieval Germany, women’s wages werelimitedbylaw.Singlewomenmightbeforbiddentowearsilkorsatineven if it was given them as a gift, or be punished for discussingreligion inpublic.Laws innumerousplaces restricted theunmarriedorwidowedwoman to a single, low-status, low-paying occupation:that of spinster, a person who spins fiber into yarn or thread.Unmarriedwomenandwidowswerealsooftenunderthepractical,ifnotnecessarily thelegal,controlof theirfathers,uncles,brothers,or(male)employers.

Insomewaysitdidnotmattermuchwhetherornotawomanwasmarried. She could not escape being on the losing side of a genderhierarchywherethemenheldallthepower.Butwherefemmessoleshadthepossibilityofalittleleeway,inmarriagethepowerdifferentialwassetinstone.Thisisnottosaythateverymarriagewasmiserable.Under coverture, as under slavery, somehusbands, like some slaveowners,were humane, caring, and altogether reasonable toward thepeopleoverwhomtheyheldsomuchpower.Butsomewerenot.

Thedeeperproblem,inbothslaveryandmarriage,wasthatthosewho were disempowered and subjugated had little recourse.UnderCatholicism, divorce was unknown and annulments permitted onlyunder extraordinary circumstances.[9] Informal separations weremorecommon,butseparatedcouplescouldnotremarryortakeotherpartners, and women particularly suffered economically for it.Protestantswerescarcelymorepermissive.(JudaismandIslamhavealways permitted divorce, but their traditions have had little to noinfluence on mainstreamWestern law and custom.) The party linethroughout the West was Matthew 19:6: “What God has joinedtogether,letnomanseparate.”

Conditions, even within marriages that were considered quitegood,couldbegrimforwomen.Mencouldpunish theirwives inanumber of ways, including physical beatings, for faults real orimagined.Onlyifbeatingswereconsidered“excessive”wasanyone

105

likelytointervene.Andofcoursethesexualdoublestandardapplied.Husbandshad the right toexpect submissionandservice from theirwives both personally and sexually, and to hold them to a strictstandardofmonogamy.Women,ontheotherhand,werecommonlyencouraged to take their husbands’ philandering in stride, lest“indecent complaint,” as Lord Halifax put it, reflect poorly on thewife.Women, in short, were stuck with the very short end of thestick.

This was the system that feminists and humanists began toquestion during the Enlightenment, questions that ultimately foundtheir most effective form in a legislative crusade. This too was ahallmarkoftheage.Theruleofreasonandjusticethroughlaw,ratherthan the potentially arbitrary divine right of kings or churches,wasoneofthemajormotifsofpoliticalchangeduringtheEnlightenment.Thecriticallegalideaattheheartofmarriagereformwasthenotionofthe civil contract as a bi- or multilateral document that creates anddefinesobligationsbetweentwoormoreparties,andprovidesabasisforredressforanypartyifthoseobligationsarenotmet.Historically,Christian marriage involved a binding agreement, but theseagreementsdidnotincludemanyoftheotherelementswerecognizeas essential to a legal contract, particularly the option for seekingredress.[10]

The creation of civilmarriage contractswas part of a long, slowpattern of increasing state involvement in marriage. For manycenturies,weddings could be astonishingly informal and sometimesarbitrary affairs that might or might not be formally witnessed,officiated,orwrittendown.Evenapromiseofmarriageoranactofsexualintercoursecouldbeconsideredabindingmarriageagreement.Thishadpredictablychaoticconsequences.Fraudulent,bigamous,orotherwise problematic “secretmarriages”were common.Yet itwasnot until the Counterreformation, in 1566, that the Catholic Churchinstitutedapolicythatallmarriageshadtobeannouncedinadvance(the readingof banns) and conductedby a priest in thepresenceofwitnesses,theoreticallycreatingatleasttwopointsatwhichobjectionstoamarriagecouldberaised.FrenchtheologianJohnCalvinwanted

106

totakethingsastepfurther,proposingthatallmarriagesberecordedbycivilauthorities,notmerely religiousones. Itwasan ideawhosetimewouldcome.

In 1753, England’s Parliament declared its formal interest incontrolling marriages in the form of what was known as LordHardwicke’s Marriage Act. The Marriage Act required that for amarriagetobevalidunderEnglishlaw,ithadtobeperformedinanofficialceremonybytheclergyofareligionrecognizedbythestate.All othermarriageswere considered invalid, and any children bornfrom an invalidmarriagewere considered illegitimate. (Famously, ahistorical loophole meant that the Marriage Act did not apply inScotland, which quickly became a travel destination for elopingEnglish. Las Vegas’s wedding-chapel Elvis impersonators havenothingontheblacksmithsofGretnaGreen.)Thestatehadofficiallystartedtotakeovertheregulationofmarriage—Francewouldfollowin 1792—andwith it, marriage began to become a civil agreement,boundbycivillaw.Whatthismeantforwomenwasthatthedoorhadbeen opened, if only a crack at first, to the possibility that the lawcouldbeusedtomakemarriagebetter.Beforelong,twoareasoflegalactivism, divorce law and property rights, emerged as the linchpinsnotjustofmarriagereformbutofafundamentalrevisionoftheroleofwomeninsociety.

Legalreformsinvolvingmarriagewereeternallycontroversialandneveruniform.DivorceproceedingsbecameacivilmatterinEnglandas early as 1857, but double standards (both there and in othercountries, includingtheUnitedStates)madedivorceamuchsimplermatterformenthanwomenuntilwellintothetwentiethcentury.No-faultdivorcedidnotbecomealegalrealityinmostoftheWestuntilthe late twentieth century.[11] Before that, those who wished todivorceaspousehadnotonlytoallegefaultbuttoproduceproof,andwomen’sreputations,asever,weremuchmoresusceptibletodamagethanmen’s.Evenwomenwhodesperatelywanted tobe ridof theirmarriages struggled to avoid being dragged through the mud of alawsuitandthesocialdisapprovalthatwasattachedtodivorce.Ittookmany years before women were able, more or less, to freely take

107

advantageofwhatwastechnicallyaccessible.Theproblemwas,of course,not entirely social. Just asmarriage

wasandstill is,divorcewas,andremains,aneconomic issue.Eventoday,womenwhodivorceare likelytofindtheirstandardof livingdeclines,while thatofdivorcedmengoesup.Thiscutsevendeeperbecausewomengenerallyretainresponsibilityforanychildren.Inanerabeforeitwaspossibleformanywomentoownpropertyorholddown paying jobs, what goodwould a divorce do awoman if herhusband’s rights to marital property meant that she would have toleaveitwiththeclothesonherbackandlittleprospectofmore?Theestablishmentofwomen’spropertyrightsthatletwomencontroltheirearnings and inheritances, own or rent property, make wills andtrusts, and otherwise take responsibility for their own financialexistence went hand in hand with divorce law in altering the waymarriageworked.IntheUnitedStates,statesbegantogivewivestheright to control their own property as early as 1839—uncharacteristically, the first to make this progressive move wasMississippi—butittooktherestofthecenturyandthensomeforthesameprivilege tobeextended to allAmericanwomen.Some states,seeking to retain some aspects of the legal jointure provided bycoverture, developed community-property laws instead. England’sMarried Women’s Property Acts, in 1870 and 1882, firmlyestablished married women’s rights over all types of property. Bygivingwomenthelegalabilitytoearnwages;writeindependentwills;inherit,keep,buy,andsellpropertybythemselves,andsoon, theselawsgavemarriedwomenmeaningfullegalpersonhood.

This was not universally seen as a good thing. The female freeagenthadalwaysbeenviewedwithsuspicion,andonthatfrontlittlehad changed.Women’s access to propertywas often qualifiedwithtrustsandotherencumbrances.Itwasnotuntil1975thatitwasfinallymadeillegalintheUnitedStatesforamarriedwomantoberequiredtogetherhusband’swrittenpermissiontotakeouta loanoropenalineofcredit.Perhapsthemosttellinglegalexampleofsociety’sdeepambivalence toward egalitarian male-female relationships, though,were“headandmaster” laws. InsomeAmericanstates,wiveswere

108

giventheabilitytocontroltheirownmoneyandpropertybyonesetof laws, while at the same time those laws were superseded andunderminedbyasecondsetoflawsthatgavetheirhusbandscompletelegalauthorityoverhouseholddecisionsandjointlyownedproperty.Husbandscould,andsometimesdid,makeunilateraldecisionsaboutmajor property issues, such as the sale of a family home, withoutwives’knowledgeorconsent.Onlyin1981didtheSupremeCourt—in a ruling on a sordid case in which Louisianan Joan Feenstra’shusband, Harold, awaiting trial on charges of having sexuallymolestedtheirdaughter,mortgagedthefamilyhome(forwhichJoanhad paid)without Joan’s knowledge or consent in order to pay hislawyer—finally determine that such laws were unconstitutionalviolations of the Equal Protection Clause of the FourteenthAmendment.[12]

Foralltheflawsandcontinuedbiasinthelegalsystem,though,theemergenceofwomenasfulllegalbeingswhoparticipateinmarriageon an equal contractual basis with men changed the tone ofheterosexuality. When “heterosexual” was coined in the mid-nineteenthcentury,womenwerestillatamarkeddisadvantagetomeninmarriageandinsocietyingeneral.Theymighthavehadmoresayaboutwhomtheywouldorwouldn’tmarry,andtheirfeelingsabouttheirmarriagesandtheirhusbandsmighthavebeenmoreinfluential,butawoman’sidentityandheragencywerestillordinarilysubsumedbythatofherfatherorherhusband.Legalpersonhoodchangedthis,making both expectations and experiences of heterosexuality moreegalitarian,adynamicinwhichbothpartners’desiresandresponseswerecrucialtothesuccessoftheenterprise.

Heterosexuality also changed in response to the increasingnumbersofwomenenteringpaidlaborandhighereducation.Womenhadalwaysworked,andhadalwayscontributedinmaterial,economicways to the welfare of their households and families. But as morewomenwentintoindustrial-agewage-laborjobs,atatimewhentheirearningswereincreasinglydeterminedtobetheirowntocontrol,themaritalpowerpicturedramaticallychanged.Womenearnedlessthanmen (a state of affairs that still pertains on the whole), but their

109

economic contribution to the household was no longer viewed somuch as something to which a husband was automatically entitled.Women’sgreaterflexibilitywithregardtoearnedincomealsomadeitslightly less difficult forwomen to go it alone, not an insignificantthingintermsofhelpingtolessenthestigmaofdivorce.

Women’s increasingaccess toeducationfurther leveledthesexistplayingfield.Men,feelingthreatenedontheirownturfandunsettledbywhatseemedlikeawildupsettingofsexualroles,launchedavocalbacklash. “The one thing men do not like is the man-woman,”Montagu Burrows, the Chichele Professor of Modern History atOxford,wrote in1869.“For theyoung ladieswhocannotobtain ‘ahighereducation’ throughtheirparents,brothers, friends,andbooksathome,orbymeansofLectures in cities, let a refugebeprovidedwith the training governesses; but for heaven’s sake, do not let usestablishthe‘University-woman’asthemoderntype.”[13]Educatedwomen were commonly spoken of as “degenerate” and “unsexed,”theirbodiesdescribedashairyandmasculinewithsmall,unwomanlybreasts. The selfish bluestocking’s refusal to content herself withdomesticity and children, and her unseemly insistence on cramminglearningintoasmaller,softerbrainthatwasn’tmadeforsuchthings,madeheranenemyoftheGod-fearing,normalfamily.

Behindthishyperbolicfearoftheeducatedwomanwasagrainofmarriage-resisting reality. As larger numbers of women enteredcollegesinthesecondhalfofthe1800s,therewasanoticeabledipinthe numbers who married. “From the 1870s to the 1920s,” writesCarroll Smith-Rosenberg, “between 40 and 60% ofwomen collegegraduates did notmarry, at a timewhen only 10%of allAmericanwomendidnot.”[14]Thereasonscollegewomenweresomuchlesslikely to marry, however, are not entirely clear. Some men surelybalkedat the ideaofmarryinganeducatedwoman.Butsomeof theresistanceoriginatedwiththewomenthemselves,andsurelythefactthatwomengenerallyhadtoforgomarriageinordertoputtheirhard-woneducationstoprofessionalusehadsomethingtodowithit.

For those college women who did marry, getting an educationmeant that they typically married later than they would have

110

otherwise.Butcollegewomenwerenottheonlyonespostponing(orrefusing)marriage. As the labor market grew, and more womenmovedintofillatleastthelower-payingranksofindustrialworkers,averageagesofmarriage rose toalmost the levels theyareat today:womenmarrying for the first time in their late twenties, andmen afewyearslater.

We are, of course, used to all these things now.But if you, likemost peoplewhowill read this book, have never lived in a culturewhere these thingsarenotconsideredstandard, it canbedifficult toimagine justhowmassive the impactofwomen’s legalpersonhood,economic autonomy, and education really was. Steven Seidmandocuments that between 1880 and 1920, the female workforce inAmerica increasedby50percent.By thepost–WorldWar IIboom,thedemandforworkershadgrownsomuch—at thesame time thatthe age of marriage dropped—that laws and employer policieschangedenmassetopermitmoremarriedwomentowork.Overthecourseofthe1950s,therewasa400percentincreaseinthenumberofmothersintheworkforce.

Today,workingwomen,whether single ormarried, parenting ornot,arethenorm,nottheexception.Asof2008,accordingtotheUSDepartmentofLabor,womenaccountedfor46.5percentofthelaborforce.[15] This is on par with the 46.7 percent of the global laborforcethatismadeupofwomen,accordingtotheUnitedNations.[16]Thebusinessoftheworld,quiteliterally,couldnotcontinuewithoutwomenworkers,andthishasalsochangedthefacesofbothmarriageand heterosexuality. The more women have been able to afford toback up their demands for better marriages—legally, economically,and socially—themore egalitarian and lessmandatorymarriage hasbecome, and the more heterosexuality has had to accommodatewomen’sdemandsinadditiontomen’s.

Autonomyisthekeytoallofit.InawaythatsimplywasnottruefortheVictorians,whoinventedtheconceptoftheheterosexual,wecaredeeplyaboutagencyand,inparticular,aboutwomen’sabilitytospeak for themselves. It’s not enough, for most of us, to say that“obviously” God or Nature intended for men and women to have

111

relationships.Werequirethatthemenandwomenwanttobeinthoserelationships,andthattheyhavetheoptionnottobeinthemiftheysochoose. There is a huge difference between perceiving sexualattractionsandactsasautomaticorinevitable,andperceivingthemasvolitional acts and rational choices. It is now rare, in theWest, forpeopletoviewdifferent-sexrelationshipsasinevitableorasamatterof duty.Autonomyof the individual has takenour relationships, ashistorian Stephanie Coontz puts it, from “public institution withprivate consequences” to “private agreement with publicconsequences.”

Heterosexuality today is for themost part understood as being amatterofindividualsubjectivitiesandpreferencesamongpeers.Menand women do not tend to consider one another automatically assuperiors and inferiors, and neither men nor women are statutorilyentitled to hold power over one another or obligated to submit.Wetendtodaytoviewtheobjectsofourdesireasbeingonlysuperficiallydifferentfromourselves.Sexism,racism,andotherprejudicessurelylinger,butwealsoprofoundlybelieveinthelegacyofEnlightenmentegalitarianism:thatwhenpushcomestoshove,weareallofasinglehuman kind. Without this nonhierarchical vision of humanity, inwhich everyperson is his orherownmaster, a heterosexuality thatrests in the fulfillment ofmutual personal desires could never havecometobe.

TOBREEDORNOTTOBREED?Foraverylongtime,babieswereegalitarianmarriage’sWaterloo.Formostofhumanhistory,babieshavebeenaninevitablepartofsexualactivitybetweenmenandwomen,andthemostfundamentalpurposeofmarriage.TheprofoundimportanceofchildrentomarriageshowsitselfintheinfertilitymiraclesoftheBible,allthestoriesofAbrahamandSarah,IsaacandRebecca,Hannah,andothersthatrevolvearoundmiraculous reversals of barrenness. It is also evident in the Romanlegal codes,which permitted barren couples to adopt so they couldavoid dying without heirs, and in the fact that in themedieval era,impotence and nonconsummation ofmarriagewere two of the very

112

fewgroundsonwhichtheCatholicChurchwouldannulamarriage.The “goods ofmarriage” in bothCatholicism and Protestantism, aswehaveseen,includedthegenerationofchildren.

Havingbabiesremainedanessentialaspectofmarriage,andoneofthemainissuesinanymale/femalesexualrelationship,untillateinthetwentieth century. It should come as no surprise that our Victorianancestors who pioneered the concept of the heterosexual tended tothink not just ofwomen’s sexual desire but of femaleness itself asmanifestationsof an irrepressiblenatural desire tobear children.AsgynecologistW.Balls-Headleywrotein1894,the“sexinstinct”wasthe“raisond’être ofwoman’s form, the expressionof the causeofher existence as a woman; it is the evidence of . . . the instinctivenecessity that the female reproductive cell must meet the malefecundatingcell; theobject is thepropagationof therace.”[17] Evenplainspoken sexologist reformers like Havelock Ellis waxedrhapsodic about “the mystery of pregnancy,” a realm of humanexperience “where our highest intelligence can only lead us toadoration.”[18]Pregnancywas,formostcouples,theinevitableresultof routine sexual intercourse and, as such, the inevitable result ofmarriage. Even radicals like Bertrand Russell believed in a sort ofdefault link between marriage and children, arguing in his 1929MarriageandMorals that “children, rather than sexual intercourse,arethetruepurposeofmarriage.”[19]

Childrenarestillacommonpartofmarriage.Butonthewholeourviewsonthemareratherdifferent.Thesamechangesinsocialidealsandexpectationsthatgavewould-bespousesavoiceregardingwhomtheywouldmarry, and providedwomen an autonomous social andcivil existence, also dramatically changed our attitudes towardreproduction.

TodayintheWest, it isconsideredsomethingofadefaultsettingthat pregnancies and childbirths will be, or at least ought to be,planned.“Accidentshappen,”asthesayinggoes,butwhenitcomesto reproduction, an accident is considered irresponsible, possiblyshameful. Bearing as many children as come one’s way, withoutfamily planning of any kind, is so unusual now thatwe view it as

113

nothingshortofafreakshow:witnesstheseveraliterationsofrealitytelevision shows about the Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar family,whose nineteen children have made them the poster family for thecontroversial, fundamentalist Christian “Quiverfull” movement.[20]Parentsoflargefamilies,particularlyiftheyarepoor(andespeciallyifthey receive government assistance) are often demonized as selfishandlackingrestraint.Alternatelyitmaybeassumedthattheyaretheunquestioning dupes of authoritarian religion. In either case, themarriagethatcentersaroundraisingmanychildrenispresumedtobeold-fashionedandfrumpy.

Itwasn’talways like this,ofcourse.Formostofhumanhistory,women had no real option other than to cope, oneway or another,withhowevermanypregnancieshappened to them. Itwas commonforwomen tobearmanymore than the twochildren thatwomen inmost of theWest average today, although not all of those childrenwerelikelytosurvive.Familieswereoftenlarge,andafairlyconstantroundofpregnancieswasastandardfeatureofmanywomen’slives.The gulf between that approach to marriage and childbearing andtoday’sistheresultofafortuitousmergingoftechnologyandculture,the science of reliable conception plus the various forces thatcontributedtoitssociallegitimacy.

The desire to control fertility is nothing new. Since timeimmemorial,women(andsomemen)havetriedvirtuallyanythingtolimit the likelihood of conception. Ancient Egyptians used acaciapessaries; Europeans from the ancient Romans to the nineteenthcentury ingested herbs like Queen Anne’s lace and pennyroyal.Across history, women desperate not to bear a child did whatevertheycould thinkof—throwingthemselvesdownstairs, liftingheavyweights, leaping from heights, sitting over boiling pots of water,drinkingturpentineorginmixedwithironfilings,stewingthemselvesin hot baths, andmuchmore besides—if they thought it could helpthemavoidit.Thedesperationofsomeofthesemethodsspeakswithgreat clarity to the fact that thesewere nomere attempts to create asituation where women could enjoy more sex and more sexualpleasurewithoutpayingtheproverbialpiper.Whilethe“womenjust

114

want to have consequence-free sex” anti-contraceptive argument isoften trottedoutby latter-day social conservatives, such aview is acruelandmisogynistoversimplification.Amorerealisticassessmentof the struggle for effective contraceptionwould be to see it as thestruggle to achieve some level of control over the single mostdangerous, resource-intensive, and biologically crucial activity inwhichhumanbeingsregularlyengage.

Conception, of course, is unpredictable. Even todaywe have noreally good way of knowing whether or not any individual act ofintercoursemightresultinaconception.Itwasnotuntil1927thatwecouldreliablytesttoseewhetherconceptionhadtakenplace.Priortothat, earlypregnancycouldonlybeguessedatbasedonwhetherornotawoman’smensesarrivedontime.Historicallythereweremanywould-becontraceptivesavailable,fromcoitusinterruptusandherbalbrews to improvised condoms. But access was unreliable, somemethodsweretoxic,othersdifficultorinconvenient,andeventhebesthistoricalcontraceptiveswerenotparticularlydependable.Giventhateventhetimingofovulationinthecontextofthemenstrualcyclewasnotwellunderstooduntil1924,penis-in-vaginaintercourse,formostofhumanhistory,wasnothingmoreandnothinglessthanagameofchance.

The chance of a pregnancy, in turn, meant the assumption offranklyterrifyingrisks,tosaynothingofresponsibilities.Pregnancyhas alwaysbeena fraught time,gradually interferingwithwomen’sphysical functionevenwhen itdoesn’tbring seriousdiscomfortsorcomplications.Ithasalwaysmeant theprospectofanothermouthtofeed. What we often forget, from our first-world perch with itshospitalbirths,antibiotics,andantisepticprocedures, is thatuntil thetwentiethcentury,childbirthwasalsodeadly.

Prior to the twentieth century,maternalmortalitynever fellmuchbelow7percent.[21]However,LawrenceStonenotes,inasoberingstatistic,thatfromthesixteenthtothenineteenthcentury,threeoutofeveryfourmarriagesamongthearistocracythatendedbeforethetenthanniversary did so because of the death of the wife.[22] Nor wasearly childhood any safer, with an infant mortality rate that ranged

115

from15percent to25percent,a rate that today is foundonly in thepoorest of thirdworld nations.Angola’s 2009 infantmortality rate,for example, was around 18 percent, andAfghanistan’s around 15percent, according to theCIAWorldFactbook. Compare that to lessthan 1 percent for the United States, United Kingdom, and theEuropeanUnioncountries.

TousintheWesttoday,thesenumbersdescribeanalienworld.Itis so unusual for awoman or an infant not to survive a pregnancytoday that we regard it as a tragedy when it happens. For ourancestors,itwasasadcommonplace.Sotoowastheawarenessthatrepeatedchildbearingtendedtosapwomen’sstrengthandleavethem(andfrequentlytheirchildrenaswell)vulnerabletoillnessandinjury.Littlewonderthatmanyofourforemothersopenlyfearedandavoidedsex.Theirs was not a world where there could be any sense ofbalance between sexual pleasure and the perils of pregnancy andchildbirth.

Maternalhealthandwelfarewerenot theonlymotivations in thestruggle for reliable contraception. In fact, thanks to the advent ofantisepticpractices,maternalmortalitywasalreadyonthewanebythetime Margaret Sanger went to work as a visiting nurse in theimmigranttenementsofNewYorkCityin1912.ButSanger,whoseownmotherhaddiedmiserablyatfiftyafterbearingelevenchildren,wasdeeply awareof just howmuch further therewas to gobeforepregnancy and childbirth could become a net positive in women’slives. She was not the first to consider contraception essential tosolving this problem. Since the nineteenth century, reformers likeElizaDuffyhadbeenarguingagainst“enforcedchildbearing”forthesakeofwomenthemselves,aswellasthesakesoftheirchildren.Inthe early twentieth century, as women solidified their legal andeconomic independence and governments increasingly took on theresponsibility of assuring public health, maternal and child healthbegan tobecomemorecompellingcivic issues.But feministappealson the subject—then as now—met with only limited success.Socioeconomics provided a far more convincing argument forcontraceptionthanwomen’swelfarehad.

116

The early nineteenth-century’s Reverend Thomas Malthus hadcorrectlyidentifiedfertilityandpopulationgrowthascrucialeconomicandpoliticalissues,bothattheleveloftheindividualhouseholdandofthenation:ifpopulationoutstrippedresources,heargued,disasterwould result. These ideas proved central to early contraceptivescampaigns, and are still used today by groups like PopulationConnection (formerly known as Zero Population Growth). Thelanguageemployed todecry the “overproduction”of childrenwas auseful, clinical-sounding counter to the moral indignation leviedagainstcontraceptivepractices.Peoplelongaccustomedtothenotionthat pregnancies representedGod’swill could be induced—throughthe high-status language of industrial success and failure—to agreethatperhapsitwasnotsobadforhumaningenuitytointerveneintheDivineplan,nowandthen,inthenameofcom-monprofit.

Malthusian arguments also fit in well with the social Darwinistworriesof theage.Ona relativelybenign level, thesemanifested inthefamiliarconcernthatchildrenshouldnotbebroughtintotheworldunless theirparentswerepreparedtogivethema“proper,”meaningmiddle-class, upbringing. The ability to provide “respectable”education, clothing, nutrition, and the like to childrenwas seen notjustastheadmirablegoalithadbeenearlier,butwasnowastandardbywhich readiness forparenthoodcouldbemeasured.Therewasagrowingexpectationthat thewell-preparedparentwouldprovideforchildren inveryspecificandoftencostlyways, including theuseofmyriad new specialized products often touted as “scientific”:commercial baby foods, purpose-built toilet-training equipment,speciallydesignedchildren’sclothes,nutritionalsupplements.[23]Allthese new inventions were touted as necessary because, as theeditorial tagline forParentsMagazine read, fromits founding in the1920suntil itwaschangedin1951,“Thefutureoftheracemarchesforwardonthefeetoflittlechildren.”

With the “future of the race” at stake, fears about inappropriatechildbearing also assumed more sinister forms. An increasinglywidespread fear that the “unfit” and “unsuitable” were breeding atsucha rate that theirnumberswouldovertake thoseof the“fit”and

117

“worthy” slotted in neatly beside common paranoia about the poor,the nonwhite, the slum-dweller, and their even more terrifyingcousins,theaddict,theprostitute,theindigent,andthedisabled.Thatsuch sorry specimens might theoretically outbreed the upright,respectablemiddleclassesintensifiedthenineteenth-centurytendencyto panic about “race suicide” and national failure. Such fearscontinuedunabated into the twentieth century,when they eventuallyreceived a red-scare makeover.As politically influential Dixie CupmagnateHughMooreputitinawidelycirculated1956letter,“We’renotprimarilyinterestedinthesociologicalorhumanitarianaspectsofbirthcontrol.Weareinterestedintheuse...whichtheCommunistsmakeofhungrypeopleintheirdrivetoconquertheearth.”[24]

The solution to both increasing birth among the worthy andminimizing it among theunworthy, at least in theory,was relativelysimple. The fit and worthy were to be encouraged to have morechildren.Theywouldbesupportedintheefforttoboostthemiddle-class population through government-sponsored maternal benefits,classes for new parents, and child welfare programs, all of whichsprangupinquantitythroughouttheWestduringtheinterwaryears.Aspartofthisoveralleffort,thephrase“familyplanning”cameintobeing in the1940s, its reassuringovertonespromising an appealingbrandofdomesticsecurity.Ifhavingafamilycouldbeplanned,inthesame way one might plan the building of a house, doing itsystematicallyseemedtomakethetaskmuchlessdaunting.

Then there were those who were not to be given the option ofparenthood, whether planned or not. Compulsory sterilizations insmallnumberswereperformedintheUnitedStateson“undesirables”beginning in 1907. The practice was adopted in Scandinavia in theinterwaryears.AnattempttoestablishsterilizationasastatepolicyinBritain in 1913 failed, but, in 1933, Germany passed a EugenicSterilizationLaw,modeledontheModelSterilizationLawdevelopedby the Eugenics Record Office of the United States. The EugenicSterilization Law, in turn, swiftly became an infamous tool of theThirdReich.

One might think that considering the extremes to which

118

governmentswerewillingtogotostopthewrongpeoplefromhavingbabies, garden-variety contraceptionwould have been, as itwere, asimple pill to swallow. But anxiety that the right people wouldprocreate, combined with centuries of moral opposition tocontraception (not least thatof theCatholicChurch),meant that thiswashardly the case. Inmany jurisdictions, contraceptionwas eitherillegal or of dubious legal status. In virtually all, it was officiallytaboo.

What governments or religious authorities dictated, andwhat theaverage Joeand Janedid in theirprivate lives,however,wereoftentwo different things. After all, economic, medical, and socialmotivations for family planning are hardly limited to governments.Thenineteenthcenturyappearstohavebeenaneraofwidespreaddo-it-yourself family planning.Researchers includingKarl Ittmann andDanielScottSmithhave foundampleevidence that evenamong thepoor working classes in the turn-of-the-century United States andUK,enoughpeopleweredeliberatelylimitingfamilysizeforittobedemographicallyapparentinstatisticalretrospect.[25]Imperfectastheavailable methods were (withdrawal was the favorite), Victorians’dedication to their contraceptive practices must have beenimpressively consistent. Birthrates among American white womendeclinedfrom7babiesperwomanin1800toaround3.5in1900,asort of drop that simply does not happen without some sort ofintentionalbrakeonfertility.Thiswaspreciselythesortofdeclineinbirthrate among the “right” peoplethat provoked somuch paranoid“racesuicide”speculation.

Bythestartofthetwentiethcentury,itwasbecomingobviousthatintentional fertility limitation was not just a superficial trend butincreasinglyapartofstandardmiddle-classexperience.Facedwithafait accompli, religious authorities and then major seculargovernmentsbegantogranttheirgrudgingapprovaltocontraception.TheChurchofEnglandwasfirst,permittingitasof1930formarriedcouples who felt a “moral obligation” to limit parenthood. Theinfluential Council of Churches of Christ, representing about 22millionAmericanProtestants,followedwithasimilarpronouncement

119

in1931.ItwasnotuntilmuchlaterthatmajorWesterngovernmentsgot on board. In 1965,Griswold v. Connecticut established thatcontraception was constitutional in the United States on privacygrounds,whileBritain’sNationalHealthServiceAmendment(FamilyPlanning)Actof1967establishedthatcontraceptivedevicescouldbedistributedfreelyundertheauspicesoftheNationalHealthService.

What finally tipped the scales of government acceptancewas thecontraceptive pill, a technology born of equal parts scientificinnovationandfeministdaring.Legal,moral,economic,andsocietalobstaclesmadecontraceptivesactivismandresearchdifficultatbest.Fearing reprisal, universities, major medical researchers, andpharmaceuticalcompaniesrefusedtogetinvolved.Thiswaslargelyasocial fear. Corporationswerewell aware of just how lucrative thecontraceptionmarketwas:GoodyearRubbermade$150millioninthecondoms market in 1958, while simultaneously refusing toacknowledgethatitmanufacturedthem.[26]Itwasclearthatifthejobof developing a contraceptive pill was going to get done, it wouldhave to be done privately. Itwas ultimately funded and directed bytwoformidablewomen.MargaretSangercoordinatedtheeffort,andphilanthropistKatherineDexterMcCormickprovidedthecapital.

Even before it became available, though, the Pill was a topic ofintense, even desperate, interest. When news that it was indevelopment hit the media, the researchers received a flood ofdesperateletters:

Iamabout30yearsoldhave6children,oldestlittleover7,youngestafewdays.Myhealthdon’tseemtomakeitpossibletogoonthisway.Wehavetriedtobecarefulandtriedthisandthat,butIgetpregnantanyway.WhenIreadthisarticle[ScienceDigest,September1957]Icouldn’thelpbutcry,forIthoughthereismyrayofhope.[27]

Manywent so far as to offer themselves as research subjects, eventhoughtheyknewvirtuallynothingaboutthedrugoritspossiblesideeffects—it was worth almost anything to find a solution to the

120

problemofunplannable,unstoppablepregnancies.Noonewhohadbeen involvedwith thedevelopmentof thePill

was surprised by the eagerness and devotion with which womenbegantotakeitwhenitbecameavailablein1960.Thecultureatlargeandthemedia,however,wereflabbergasted,andsometimeshorrified,that within five years more than six million women in the UnitedStates were taking it. But soon it was apparent that the Pill hadushered inabravenewworld.By1970,more thanhalfofall adultwomen, married or unmarried, were using some form ofcontraception or had been voluntarily sterilized. Our relationship tomarriageandchildbearingwastransformed.

Birthrates, already on the decline, dropped still further as morewomen availed themselves of the new technology. In England, awomanwhomarriedbetween1851and1860was likely tobear sixchildren; anEnglishwoman in 2007would, according to theBritishOffice forNationalStatistics, average1.9.[28] In theUnited States,the story has been much the same. Even the supposedlyextraordinarily fecund post–World War II “baby boom”Americanfamiliesaveragedonlyaround threechildren.By2007,according tothe Centers for Disease Control, the American fertility rate haddropped to around the 2.1 births per woman average that isconsideredabaselinereplacementratefortheexistingpopulation.[29]Inboth theUSandUKcases, thesevery low fertility ratesactuallyrepresent an increase over the all-time lows recorded in the early1970s, shortly after both countries made contraception legallyaccessibletoallwomen.

Such decreased fertility has meant, among other things, thatwomen spend much more of their reproductive lives doing thingsother than having and rearing children. It has also changed whathappenstowomen’sliveswhen,andindeedif,theymarry.Marriage,in the early twenty-first century, is by no means a relationship towhichchildrenarepresumednecessary,letaloneallbutinevitableastheywere in thepast.For awoman togo through lifewithout everbearingachildisnolongerconsideredastartlinganomaly.Marriedorunmarried,around15to20percentofAmericanwomenagedfortyto

121

forty-four, at this point, have never had a child. It may be that thedecreasedemphasisonhavingchildrenisalsopartofthedecreaseinthenumbersofwomenwhochoosetomarry.In2002, itwasabout79 percent likely that an American woman would get married,accordingtotheNationalCenterforHealthStatistics,andin2008,theBritishmediaengagedinaboutofhandwringingovertherevelationthatthemarriageratetherehadfallentoitslowestsince1862.[30]

Thesimplefactisthatchildrenarenolongerpresumednecessaryto marriage. Marriage, likewise, is no longer presumed inevitablebecause of the demand that one procreate.And should onewish tohaveachild,oneneedonlydoit:marriageisincreasinglyoptional.Inboth the United States and the UK, approximately 40 percent ofbabies are nowborn to unmarried parents; in Iceland, Sweden, andNorway,thepercentagerangesto50to65percent.Somuchforthevilified “stinking Sluts” of eighteenth-century satire: unmarriedwomenandmencannowopttoliveouttheirlivesunmarriedandstillbe happy, healthy, productive, mostly unremarkable members ofsociety. They may be mothers. They may well even be partnered.CohabitationwithoutmarriagehasgrowndramaticallythroughouttheWest,andpeople,notleastcelebritieslikeAngelinaJolie,openlyandhappilychoosebothunmarriedpartnershipandunwedparenthood.

Whatallthismeansformarriageisthatitsnatureandpurposearefundamentallydifferentnowthanatanytimeinhistory.Whiletheoldmeaningsandfunctionsstillexist,economicallyandsocially,theydonotdominate in theway theyoncedid,and indeedareopenboth topublicdebateanddeliberatereconfiguration.Thisisnowheresotrueas it is with regard to fertility. Contraception, not to put too fine apoint on it, has enabled companionate marriage to become focusedalmost entirelyon that companionship.Financially, emotionally, andphysically, spouses need not share their resources with childrenunlesstheychooseto,andthen,inmostcases,onlywiththenumberofchildrentheydesire.Thereisnolongerasensethatmarriagemeansthenear-inevitablearrivalofatiny,squallingroadblocktoputtingoneanotherfirst.

This expectation has spilled over into all heterosexual relations.

122

Our optimal version of heterosexuality has become one where theentiregamutofconception,pregnancy,childbirth,andchildrearingnotonly can be but normally is cordoned off, a separate realm fromsexuality altogether. Our contemporary heterosexuals are notcompelled, willy-nilly, by biology or family pressure or religiousdogma or government mandate, to pair up and make babies JustBecause. They are free agents whose liberty to pursue sexual,emotional,andreproductivehappinesswiththepartneroftheirchoicehaseffectivelybecome,nomatterhowsocialconservativessquawk,anotherhumanright.

123

CHAPTERFIVE

What’sLoveGottoDowithIt?

“Nearly everybody gets twitterpated in the springtime,” FriendOwlexplains in Walt Disney’s classic animated filmBambi (1942).“You’rewalkingalong,mindingyourownbusiness,”Owlcontinues,“you’re looking neither to the left nor to the right, when all of asuddenyourunsmackintoaprettyface.Woowoo!Youbegintogetweakintheknees.Yourhead’sinawhirl.Andthenyoufeellightasa feather, andbeforeyouknow it, you’rewalkingonair.And thenyouknowwhat?You’reknockedforaloop,andyoucompletelyloseyourhead!”

Sweet and superficial, this sort of step-by-step instruction in theemotionalpracticeofheterosexualityiseverywhereinDisneyfilms.Italways has been, from the very first of their animated fairy tales,SnowWhiteandtheSevenDwarfs,which taught its1937audiencesthatifapure-heartedyoungwomanferventlybelieved“SomedayMyPrinceWillCome,”heinevitablywould.[1]

With their vaguely medieval fairytale settings of princesses andprinces,witchesandfairygodmothers,Disney’sclassicfilmshaveanappealingly timeless,magical feel.Theirplots,manyborrowedfromthe fairy-tale collections of European writer-collectors like CharlesPerrault, Hans Christian Andersen, and the Brothers Grimm, arefamiliar,forallthatthey’vebeenbrightened,lightened,anddefanged.With the darker themes of traditional myth pushed into thebackground, narratives of romantic heterosexual love are insertedwherenecessaryandblownuptosuperhumansize.Eveninlatter-dayDisney films, like 1998’sMulan, whose plot and characters haveclearlybeeninfluencedbyfeministcriticismsofDisney’straditionofhapless but plucky heroines in need of gallant male rescue, male-

124

femaleattractionandromancearestillcentraltothenarrative.Heterosexualromance,inmostoftheDisneyoeuvre,isnecessary

tothehappyending.Andthehappyending,intheDisneyuniverse,isalsothemoralofthestory:Andtheyalllivedhappilyeverafter. TheDisney corporation has a long tradition of selling this fantasy ofheterosexual romantic bliss to every conceivable audience, startingvirtuallyinthecradle.Disney’sonlinestoreoffersanentiredivisiondevoted to “Disney Princess” merchandise, includingCinderella’sFairy-TaleWeddingBook,aimedatgirlsagesfourandup.AndwhenlittleDisneyPrincessesgrowupandwanta realwedding, theycanturntoDisney’sFairyTaleWeddingsdivision,whichsince1991hasofferedservicesforeveryaspectofaDisneywedding,fromgowntohoneymoon,atanaveragepriceof$20,000perceremony.[2]

Surely there is nothingparticularly novel in the annals of humanhistory in looking for a happily ever after, a life that is secure andpleasantandeasy.Expectingit tobetheresultprimarilyofromanticlove,ontheotherhand,isafairlyrecenthistoricaltrend.Evenmoremodern is the oddly naïve insistence—particularly in otherwisesophisticated men and women—that somewhere out there, PrinceCharming or a perfect princess is waiting for them, the only thingstandingbetweenthemandaperfectlife.Forgoodreason,mycircleof friendsrefers to thiskindofoverinflated,codependent fantasyofromanticloveas“Disneydamage.”

ANOVELROMANCEIt isn’t allDisney’s fault, of course.Disney is just themost iconicrecent manifestation of a sort of cultural propaganda that had itsbeginnings in the Renaissance, around the same time of the manyother cultural changes—the Counterreformation, the rise ofhumanism, the birth of companionate marriage—that havetransformed heterosexual experience. The Protestant emphasis onmarriageovercelibacy,anewfocusonindividualism,andofcoursethenotionthatthereshouldbeanaffectionateelementinmarriageallprovidedacongenialclimateinwhichthetropesoftheromanticlovestorycouldtakerootandgrow.Andgrowtheydid:asearlyas1670,

125

theCatholicbishopand scholarPierre-DanielHuet coulddeclareoftheearliestprosenovelsor“romances”that“weesteemnothingtobeproperlyRomancebutFictionsofloveAdventures,disposedintoanElegant Style in Prose, for the Delight and Instruction of theReader.”[3]

Huet’s insight that novels are instructive is instructive itself.Hiswasanage inwhich literacywas still limitedprimarily to theelites,andalongconnectionbetweenreadingandreligiousstudymeantthatthe mere activity of reading tended to be viewed as automaticallyeducational in nature. But as Huet pointed out, the stories wereteachingtoolsofaspecifickind.These“loveAdventures”taughtthereader about the battle between virtue and vice and the struggle toavoiddisgraceinaveryspecificcontext,thatofrelationshipsbetweenwomen and men. This was important, Huet explained, becauseenthusiasmfor loveand lovestorieswasapparentlyuniversal.Theyappealedtotheintellectuallysophisticatedandthefrivolous,themanof letters and the lady of leisure. Romances easily captivated theimaginationand theattention, thepassions“agreeablyprovokedandappeased.”[4]Much,Huet explained, could be effectively conveyedstraight to the hearts and minds of readers through these “DumbTutors,whichsucceedthoseoftheCollege,andteachushowtoLiveand Speak by a more Persuasive and Instructive method thantheirs.”[5]Thequestion,whichhasbeenaskedagainandagainoverthe centuries,wasnotwhethernovels (or films, orvideogames, orpopsongs)were influential,butwhether their influencewasagoodone.Huetwasamoderateonthesubject,hisviewssummedupwithaliberal shrug: “I knowwhat they are accused for:Theyexhaust ourDevotion, and inspire us with Irregular Passions, and corrupt ourManner.Allthismaybe,andsometimesdoeshappen.Butwhatcan’tEvilandDegeneratedMindsmakeanIllUseof?”[6]

Novelsdidnotjustpromotetheidealofcompanionatemarriagebutalso thenotion that it shouldbe arrivedat throughanexperienceofpassionate romance. Fictional examples encouraged ever largernumbers of readers to accept the possibility, and perhaps even thedesirability, that therolesof loverandspousemight ideallybefilled

126

by the sameperson.Someof thesebooksbecamewellknown, likeFannyBurney’s1778Evelina,still taughttodayandpopularenoughthatJaneAustenreferredtoitbynameinherown1817NorthangerAbbey. Other titles of less lasting reputation but nearly identicalattitudestowardromancenumberedinthethousands,includingthoseof the almost ridiculously prolific ElizaHaywood,more or less theNoraRoberts of her day.Haywoodpublishedmore than thirty-fivenovels with titles likeThe Distressed Orphan; or, Love in aMadhouse andThe Fatal Fondness, each one a testament to thepressure on writers to produce a happy-ending love narrative thepublic could find irresistible. Even Charles Dickens succumbed,rewriting, with a bit of prodding from colleague Edward BulwerLytton, the very ending ofGreat Expectations to suggest thepossibility that Pipwould find a happily-ever-afterwithEstella andthus,hehoped,boostthenovel’sacceptance.(Ifyoufoundtheendingunconvincing,nowyouknowwhy.)

Tobesure,theromantic-lovenovelhaditsloyalopposition.MaryWollstonecraftandSamuelJohnson tended tobeof theopinion thatromanticlovewas,asLawrenceStoneputsit,“nomorethanapurelyartificialemotioninventedbynovelistsandadoptedbymenasacoverforsexualdesire.”[7]Wollstonecraft’s unfinished final novelMaria,ortheWrongsofWoman (1792),infact,depictsthedisasterofwhatthe titular heroine believed to be a love-match marriage. Maria’shusband, George, turns out to be a libertine, gambler, and generalwastrel who put up a gentlemanly and loving front while courtingMariainordertosecureherlargedowry.Maria’sattemptstosalvageherlife,marriage,andfortunesresultinherhusbandcommittinghertoan insaneasylum. It is agrimstory that seemsall thebleakerbycontrastwith thewildlypopularcultof thehappily-ever-after.Yet ittooexploresapartoftherealityofwhatromanticlovebroughttothepracticeandexperienceofheterosexuality.

Astimewenton,Romantic-eranovelistswouldcometofocusonthepotentially catastrophic fallout of love.The theme fuels someofthe era’s greatestworks, includingGoethe’sTheSorrowsofYoungWerther and Flaubert’sMadame Bovary. But even such dramatic

127

critiques of the romantic-love dynamic could not counterbalance theoverwhelming number of stories that pursued their romantic story-linestoanendingthatcouldbesummedupinthesamewaythatthelastchapterofJaneEyre(alsoaRomantic-eranovel)begins,“Reader,Imarriedhim.”

Somereaderswereawarethatthenovelstheylovedamountedtoapropagandacampaign,thatthelovestorieshadaparticularagendathatmightormightnothaveanythingatalltodowithreality.Butthenasnow, being a canny and independent-minded consumer of popularmedia did not bar one from also enjoying beingmanipulated by it.Thomas Carlyle’s wife, the astute woman of letters Jane WelshCarlyle,wassurprisinglyfondofsometrulytrashynovels,includingDinahCraik’s 1849 potboilerTheOgilvies.[8]Of this turgid tome,complete with love triangles, rumors, and a meddling benefactress,Carlyle said, “It quite reminds one of one’s own love’s youngdream.”[9] Carlyle’s comment not only shows that she was quiteawareofthedistancebetweenfictionandreality,butalsorevealsthather enjoyment of the book depended on her own experience ofidealizing and fantasizing romantic love.Where did Carlyle’s “ownlove’syoungdream”comefrom?Mostlikelyatleastsomeofitcamein turn froman earlier readingof novels, different in their style butnevertheless dependable in terms of providing the stories Huet soaptlycharacterizedas“amorousadventures.”

Youngandpoorpeople’saccesstoromanticnovelswasseenasaserious issue indeed. Moralists typically presumed that readers,particularly young women readers, had no critical facultieswhatsoever and would passively internalize the unrealisticexpectations of novelistic romance with dismal results. The familyresemblancebetweentheeighteenth-andnineteenth-centurynovelandthefilmsofWaltDisneyisthusnotjustaboutcontent.Itisalsoaboutpopularity,accessibility,andreception.

Asearlyasthe1680s,Bostonbooksellers’recordsshowthatsalesofbooksinthecategory“romances,etc.”camesecondonlytothatofBibles and religiousworks.[10] In 1785, novelist and literary criticClaraReeveattackedtheinstitutionofthecirculatinglibrarybecause,

128

withitsaffordablesubscriptionratesandvoluminousshelves,itmadethe voracious reading of novels so easy. Shewas, itmust be said,standinginatleastapartiallyglasshousewhenshethrewthatstonein the pages of herThe Progress of Romance (1785): her literaryreputation at the time rested primarily upon her Gothic novels,includingThe Old English Baron (1777). Reeve would have beenmore horrified still by the nineteenth- and twentieth-centuryproliferation of railway book stalls, book clubs, “penny dreadfuls”and dime novels, and especiallythe explosion of periodicalswhosepublicationoffiction—ofteninserialform,asinthecaseofmanyofDickens’s novels—in cheap, mass-produced form made themaccessible not just to the educated middle classes, but to theincreasinglyliterateworkingclassesaswell.Itisprobablyjustaswellthat Reeve didn’t live long enough to experience American-stylepubliclibrarysystems,whichmadeallkindsofbooks,includingthehugelypopular romanticnovels,available toeven thepoorestof thepoorfornocharge.

The“loveadventure”mayhavehaditsfinestliterarymomentsasamiddle-classphenomenon,buttheurbanmassesoftheindustrialageenjoyedthelovestoryjustasmuchasanyoneelse.Romancefictionbecameastapleofmassmediaandmassculture,trainingnotjustthewell-offandeducatedbutalsotheworking-classandpoortoexpectavery particular—and historically peculiar—version of relationsbetweenmenandwomen.Thisisstilltruetoday.Theromancemarketis consistently the top-performing categoryon theNewYorkTimes,USAToday, andPublishersWeeklybest-sellerlists,accordingtothetradeassociationRomanceWritersofAmerica,andtheUSromancefictionmarketgrossesabout$1.35billionyearly.Yetitisconsideredaliterary“ghetto,”associatedwiththepink-collarworkingclass,andgenerally not regarded as literature by the mainstream middle-classpress.

Clearly, a greater tolerance of and even enthusiasm for romanticlovewasalreadyintheairwhenthepopularityofthenovelbegantospread.Evenhadthenovelnotbecomethemassiveforceofculturalpropagandaandinstructionthatitdid,wemightstillsufferthesame

129

romantic effects. But as it happened, the growth of the culture ofromantic love in theWest was inextricable from the growth of thenovel.Ourcultureofheterosexualityruns,inaveryrealway,ontherepeatedinscriptionofafantasyofromancebetweenmenandwomenthat gets replayed a thousand times a day with every clunk of theprintingpress,everywhirofthefilmreel,andeveryiconicphotoofDisneyland’sSleepingBeautyCastle.

“ENCIRKLEDINTHOSEBLESSEDARMS”Heaven, preached seventeenth-century Calvinist Thomas Shepard,wasa“CelestialBrideChamberandBedofLove.”Unlikeinearthlylife,whereeventhesaintscouldonlyoccasionallycatchaglimpseofGodorstealakissfromHim,inHeaven,heclaimed,“thereshallbethatintimacythatthereisbetweenthemostlovinghusbandandmostbeloved wife, and transcendently greater . . . they will not beinterruptedCaresseswhichtheyshallhavefromhim... .TherewillbenomoreCoynessontheirparts,norAngeronhis,butthedelightswhich they shall enjoy, shall beboth full anduninterrupted . . . thereciprocalardorsofAffectionbetweenhimandus, shallbreakoverallBanksandBounds,andweshallbeentirelysatisfied,bothinSoulandBody.ThenshallwecometoourRest.”[11]Justasliteraturewaslearningtodetailthetwistsandturnsofthe“loveadventure,”religionwasalsolearningthelanguageoflove.

Even in the seventeenth century there was, of course, nothingparticularly new about love imagery in religion, particularly inChristianity.TheSongofSongshad,afterall,beenaroundforagoodlongtime.SincetheReformation,Christianiconographyalsoincludeda heavy dose of Christ as the Bridegroom, come to joinmetaphorically with the believer, who took on the role of thevulnerable, eager Bride. What was new to seventeenth-centuryProtestantism, particularly as it was practiced in North America,however,wasthenotionthatindividualChristiansmight,andperhapseven should, have personal experiences along the same ardentlyemotionallines.

SomeAmericanProtestants, likeministerCottonMather, drewa

130

distinct line between vivid metaphor and appropriate Christianpractice. But others, particularly as the eighteenth centurywore on,did not make such a clear separation. The evangelical approach toChristianity did not view God’s grace as something that workedprimarily through reason and learning, as earlier Protestants andCatholics had, but as something one experienced directly with theemotions.Evangelicals came to see emotional experiences asoneofthewaysinwhichGodworkedonhumans,appealingdirectlytotheirsoftheartsinsteadofstrugglingtogetthroughtheirhardheads.Thisapproach to faith had many manifestations: revival meetings, theecstaticdancingof theShakers,“speakingin tongues,”swooningortrembling during worship, and even the relatively sedate Quakerpracticeof“waitingon theLord.”The idea thataChristian’sproperrelationshiptoGodwasinternal,emotional,andprofoundlypersonalbecameincreasinglycommonplace.

Alongwith thiscamea slowbut seismic shift in the ideologyofemotions. Difficult to control, maddeningly changeable, andsuspiciously close to the unruly agendas of the animal self, strongspontaneousemotionwasredeemedbythefactthatitcouldalsobeaconduit for God. Particularly in NorthAmerica, where evangelicalapproachestoreligionwerecommon(andinsomeplacesdominant),the experience and expression of emotion became elevated andspiritualized.Formany,themoreintensetheemotionalexperience,themoreintensethespiritualexperience.Metaphorsoflove,passion,andecstasywere not justmetaphors; theywere the best language theseChristians,whosocarefullycultivatedtheiremotionalrelationshipstoGod, had to describe their experiences. When believers describedfeeling “ravished” by God, or “melting” into a state of spiritual“rapture,”itbothwasandwasn’tjustafigureofspeech.

IntimeChristiansbegantoattributeasimilarspiritualmeaningtothoseemotionswhentheyfelttheminregardtootherhumanbeings.As historian Zsuzsa Berend argues, evangelical Christian emotionalpracticesprovidedawaytolegitimizethepotentiallyanarchicforceofromanticlovebetweenhumanbeings.“Attractionbecamethesignofa God-ordained union, oneness a spiritual ideal deemphasizing

131

sensualandsexualimplications,andself-forgetfulnesstheepitomeofselflessness,” Berend writes.[12] “True love,” the epitome of anemotionalanderoticromanticlove,wasredeemedfromsuspicionsofsensuality by Christian interpretations of spontaneous passionateemotionaspure,noble,moral,and(paradoxicallyenough)selfless.Ifa man and a woman felt such powerful internal stirrings for oneanother,itwasinterpretedasasignfromabove.Godapproved,thatwaswhytheyfeltsostrongly.

God’slovereconciledromance,andeven“romanticadventure,”tomiddle-class society. The most private emotions and spontaneoussurges of feeling could now be interpreted as being eminentlyrespectable. Especially if they led to formal courtship andmarriage,there was no gap between passionate love and responsibleparticipationinalltheobligationsofadulthood.Butthespiritualizationof romantic love created new obligations, too. As the nineteenthcenturyprogressed, itbecameapparent that itwasnolongerenoughtofindapartnerforwhomonecouldfeelaffectionandsympathy,orevenenoughtofindapartneronecouldlove.Onehadtofindaveryspecificanddemandingkindoflove.Thislovehadtohaveacoreofspontaneous passionate emotion but also encompass “true unity,” aperfectandscrupulouslymutualbalanceof theemotional, theerotic,andthespiritual.AsMrs.JohnFarrarwroteinher1837TheYoungLady’sFriend,“[T]hegreatendofexistence,preparationforeternity,maybeequallyattainedinmarriedorsinglelife;andthatnounionbutthemostperfectoneisatalldesirable.”[13]

Finding such a perfect union was not easy. Indeed, for some,taking the task too seriously meant that they could never assurethemselvesthattheyhadtrulyfoundthe“onewhocouldbeallthingstotheheart,”andtheyendedupwithoutanyunionatall.Tobesure,thismayhavecomeasawelcomeescapeforsomemenandwomenwhohadnointerestinmarriageandpossiblynointerestintheothersex.But forothers, likepioneeringphysicianElizabethBlackwell, itwasaself-imposedprisonsentence.Forher, theextraordinarystepsof attending medical school and pursuing a life of singlehood andservicewereherwayofcopingwithanattractiontoamanwhomshe

132

feltcouldnotmeasureupto thestandardofperfectunion.Medicinewasaproductiveplacetochannelthefeelingsshe“couldnotwiselyyieldto,butcouldnototherwisestifle.”

Theprocess of getting to a perfect—or at least perfect enough—union could be complex. Men typically made the first move bydeclaring their interest.Whether thewomanwould respond in kindwasbynomeansassured.Womenoftenplayedtheircardsverycloseto their chests, frequently going so far as to test their suitors’sentiments in various ways, because once a woman reciprocated aman’s interest it was assumed that she would most likely agree tomarry him.Men often appealed to the families of the women theyhoped to court in advance of talking to the women themselves, anilluminating practical example of how the shift from traditional tocompanionatemarriagemanifested in everyday life.Men sometimeseven wrote their love letters notto the women they hoped wouldbecome their sweethearts, butabout those women to their siblings,parents,andotherrelativeswhomightbeabletoinfluencetheyounglady’s opinion.[14] Courtship proper began when a womanreciprocated a man’s interest.Across the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies, middle-class courtships became increasingly verboseaffairs, replete with confessional and philosophicalexplorations ofemotion. In face-to-face conversation as well as in the pages ofvoluminous letters,courtingcouplesscouredtheirhistoriesandtheirconsciencesforthesakeofascertainingwhethertheirswas,orcouldbe,aperfectlove.

In doing so, they forged paths through tricky and sometimestreacherousrealmsofsexuality.IntheletterssharedbyhistorianandnovelistCharlesKingsleyandhisintended,FannyGrenfell,Kingsleyin particular became deeply involved with the question of howphysicaldesireandaspiritualizedlovecouldbestbereconciled.“Ouranimalenjoymentsmustbereligiousceremonies,”Kingsleywrotetohis bride-to-be, setting the bar quite high from the start.Drawing asharpandprofoundlyreligiousdistinctionbetweensensualityandtruelove, the vocally libidinous Kingsley went so far, in hiscorrespondencewithFanny, as to propose that since hewished “to

133

shewyou&myGod that I havegainedpurity& self-control—thatintense as my love is for your body, I do not love it but as theexpression&typeofyourspirit—andthereforewhenwearemarried,will you consent to remain for the firstmonth inmy arms a virginbride,asisteronly.”[15]Thepropositionwasextreme,butnottoofaroutofkeepingwiththeprioritiesoftheera.Self-controlandthestrictmanagementofsexualactivitywerecrucialtotheabilitytospiritualizeromanticlove.Sexualactivitywasacceptableasanexpressionofthatspirituallove,butthedesireforitcouldnotbyanymeansbeallowedto gain the upper hand. Negotiating this was central to Kingsley’songoing conversation with the woman he loved. Finding the rightway to have a sexual relationship, he hoped, would “give usmoreperfect delight when we lie naked in each other’s arms, claspedtogethertoyingwitheachother’slimbsburiedineachother’sbodies,struggling,panting,dyingforamoment.Shallwenotfeelthen,eventhen, that there ismore in store forus, that those thrillingwrithingsarebutdimshadowsofaunionwhichshallbeperfect?”[16]That ahusband-to-be would write with such frank expectations of jointemotional and physical ecstasy shows just how far the idea ofmutuallycompanionatemarriagehadcome.

The 1838 correspondence between the American abolitionistsAngelinaGrimkeandTheodoreWeldwassimilarly revealingof theprioritiesoftheera.Lastingonlythreemonths,theircourtshipletter-writing was deeply influenced not just by shared Christianity andabolitionistprinciples but byGrimke’s fiery feminism. InGrimke’sessay “Letters to Catherine Beecher,” she blasted the contemporarycultureofmasculinity,callingit“acharterfortheexerciseoftyrannyand selfishness, pride and arrogance, lust and brutal violence,” andpilloriedconventionalexpectationsoffemininityasrobbingwomenoftheir essential humanity and rights.Weld was sympathetic to theseviews, and agreed with his beloved’s assertion that “when humanbeingsareregardedasmoralbeings,sex,insteadofbeingenthroneduponthesummit...sinksintoinsignificanceandnothingness.”[17]

In the course of their courtship, Grimke and Weld’s sharedfeminism, and Grimke’s keen and critical awareness of gender,

134

brought them to the point of questioning heterosexuality altogether.Theydid not call heterosexuality by that name, of course; theworddidnotyetexist.Yetinthemidstoftheirwhirlwindcorrespondence,Grimkewondered aloud, “Why does not the love ofmy own dearsisterandofmyfaithfulJane[Smith,Grimke’sdearestfemalefriend]satisfy,ifasahumanbeingImusthavehumanlove?WhydoIfeelinmy inmost soul that you,you only, can fill up thedeepvoid that isthere?”[18] It was a good question. Grimke andWeld certainly doseem to have experienced their love for one another as spiritual, somuch so that they both worried they might unintentionally beengaginginidolatry.Theyalsobelievedthatthespirithadnosexorgenderbutwastranscendentanduniversal. If lovewasspiritualandthespirithadnosexorgender,thenwhyindeeddiditseemtomattersomuch exactlywhose loveexisted in their lives?Whyshould theyboth long to be together physically?Why, as Grimke askedWeld,was it true that“thoseofourownsexcannot fill thevoid inhumanhearts?”Weld,whoconfessedthatithadneverbeforeoccurredtohimto wonder why this was so, fell back on religious explanations.MalenessandfemalenesswerepartofGod’splan,and theapparentinevitabilityoftheirmutualattractionwas,too.Yetatthesametime,neitherhenorGrimkewaswillingeventotheoreticallyroottheirloveinsomethingasbase,aspotentiallysinful,orasfraughtwithpowerimbalanceasbiologicalsex.

Just asCharlesKingsleyworked to find away to reconcile lustand spiritualized love for his fiancée and himself,AngelinaGrimkeand TheodoreWeld battled together to hammer out the terms of amarriage that could provide them with emotional, political, andspiritualunity. Romantic love did not “come naturally” for thesenineteenth-centurycouples. Itwasmuch too important for that.Thisdemanding,complicatedmodelofloveswiftlybecameseenassuchavital part of marriage that, as of the 1860s, even the law beganexplicitly to accommodate it. As Harvard-trained lawyer and lawprofessor Robert C. Brown put it in 1934, “[T]he most importantlegalactiongivenforthepurposeofprotectingmaritalrelationsfromunjustifiableinterferencebyoutsidersiswhatisknownastheaction

135

foralienationofaffections.”[19]Lovewasnot love, asShakespeareput it, that bent with the remover to remove. Love was serious,mutual,obligatorybusiness.Popularizedinliterature,spiritualizedandmadeequalinpractice,bytheendofthenineteenthcenturyromanticlovebetweenmenandwomenhadbecomeadefiningcomponentofheterosexuality all its own, a newly standard destination in theitineraryofanaveragelife.

DATINGANDRATINGAround 1914, it became possible to go out on a date.[20]As theVictorianeradrewtoaclose,andthecultoftruelovetrickleddownfromthemiddleclassestotheworkingclassandthepoor,anewstyleofcourtshipemerged.Datingaroseasanurbanalternativetothemorerural and suburban custom of “calling,” a courtship practice whereyoung men would hopefully await an invitation from a youngwoman’s family (usually themother) to “call on” ayoung lady andvisit her at her family’s home.By contrast, dating literally removedthecourtingcouplefromthedomesticrealm.Inthe“calling”system,courtship was not necessarily heavily policed—historians includingEllenRothmanhavedocumentedhowmanyfamilieswentoutoftheirwaytogivecourtingcouplesprivacyandtimealone—butitdidmeanthatcourtingstill tookplace in thecontextofawoman’sfamilyandneighbors.[21]In the“dating”system,ayoungwoman’shomemayhavebeenwhereadatebeganandended,but thedate itselfhad thecityasitsstage.

The two systems were worlds apart. Courtships carried out incafes and restaurants, parks and theatres were simultaneously lesssupervisedbutmorepublicthancalling.Theywerelesschallengingtoarrange,sinceamancouldsimplyaskawomanforadateratherthanhavingtowaitandhopeforaninvitationtocallonherathome.Butthey were much more expensive, requiring men to pay for food,entertainment,and transportation rather than taking advantage of thehomecomfortsthatwerealreadythere.Datinghadfarlessinthewayofsafetynetsorqualitycontrolforwomen,sinceawoman’sfamilyhadnorealabilitytovetwhomightasktheirdaughteroutonadate,

136

norwerefamilymemberslikelytobeinthenextroomwhenthedatewas in progress. On the other hand, this meant a great deal morepersonal choice for both men and women in terms of whom theymightcourtandhowtheymightbehaveintheprocessofdoingso.

Dating was also suited to urban life’s opportunities for meetingpeople.Althoughmostdatesstillhappenedamongpeoplewhosharedsocial circles—among coworkers or friends of friends—itwas alsoquitepossible foraman toapproachawomanwhowasacompletestranger. Dating, like marriage, was to remain mostly segregatedalongethnic,religious,andsocioeconomiclinesformanydecades(itis largely so today), but the relative spontaneity with which a datecould be arranged broadened the range of what was possible and,indeed,whatmight be considered permissible. Particularly inNorthAmerica,theendofthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturieswerea timewhenmanyethnicallydiverseNorthernEuropean immigrants“became white,” assimilating to an American ideology of race inwhich all white-skinned people were more alike than they weredifferent because all whites were contrasted to all blacks. Datingbetweenwhiteethnicgroupswaspartofthisprocess,andledinmanycasestothemotleynationalancestriessocommonamongthosewhoappeartodaytobesimply“whiteNorthAmericans.”[22]

Economically,datingwas tailor-madefor theurbanworker.Withfactory-based industry well established, many turn-of-the-centuryurbanworkerscouldreachtheirpeakearninglevelquiteearlyinlife.Evenifnot,mostcouldat least findareasonablyregularwage.Notyet responsible for wives and families, young urbanites tended tohavemoneytospendonstreetcarsandcabrides,dances,restaurants,andtheoccasionalcorsage.Suchspendingpatternsonlybecamemorecommonplace as the rituals of dating spread both up and down thesocioeconomicladder.Dating,likemarriage,wasanovertlyeconomictransaction, andwas at least superficially organized alongwhat hadbecometraditionalmale-providerlines.Menpaidfortheopportunityto date women, just as they expected to be responsiblefor theeconomics of themarital household and the support of theirwives.Paying for dates was both a symbolic demonstration of the male-

137

breadwinner paradigm and a pragmatic reflection of the superiorearningpowermenhadincomparisontowomen.

Butwomenalsohadaneconomic role toplay indating,one thatprovedcriticaltothedevelopmentofmodernconsumerculture.Menpaid for the dates themselves, butwomen paid to become attractiveenoughtobeconsideredhotdatingproperty.In thelessfamily-andcommunity-centric world of dating, an attractive appearance wasinstrumental not only to an individualman’s subjective response toher; it also determined how she and her beauwere perceivedwhenthey were out together in public, and how much status he wouldacquirefrombeingseendatingher.Femalebeautybecamethecoinofthe realm.But beautywas alsonaturalized and spiritualized. Just asonewouldnotfreelyadmitthatasuitor’smoneyhadaroletoplayinone’sdecisiontomarry,onewouldnotsaythatonedatedawomanonlyforher looks.Neithercouldwomenjustcomeoutandsaythatcoldcreamwasthesecrettotheir“naturally”radiantcomplexionsorconfess to thehoursspentwith theirhair tiedup in rags inorder toachieve those darling caps of nonchalant curls.[23] Because of themythology that held awoman’s beauty to be both “natural” and anoutward reflection of her inner virtues, all the hours, effort, andmoneyshespentonherappearancehadtobe,bygeneralagreement,invisible.

Because “the right look” was simultaneously hidden and highlypublic,theriseofdatingwasparalleledbyanalmostunbelievableriseintheproductionandadvertisementofconsumerproductsrelatingtopersonalappearance.Manyofthemoderncosmeticstypesandbrandnameswestillrecognize—tubelipsticks,mascara,MaxFactor,EsteeLauder—hadtheiroriginsintheearlytwentiethcentury.Theready-to-wearclothingindustryalsotookoffduringthistime,andperiodicalsof theerashowasuddenexplosionofadsforeverythingfromskincreamstostylishshoes.Datingprovidedabigincentivetobuyintoaconsumer-friendly paradigm of personal attractiveness that justrequiredtherightsupplies.Ideallyeffortlessandgenuine,beautywassupposedtocomefromwithin,butatthesametimetherewasabeliefthatanywomancouldbecomeattractive“ifshetried.”Allittookwas

138

therightattitudeandtherightproducts.Thecultureofdatingwasnottheonlyfactorthatfueledtheriseoftheconsumerfashionandbeautyindustries,butitwascertainlyastrongcomponentinaworldwherewomenwereconstantlytoldthattheycould“puthiminthemoodformatrimony”withPond’sfacecream.

This may sound superficial, but looks were nothing if notimportant to dating culture. The fact that dating was carried out inpublic spacesmeant simultaneously that dating offered a species oflost-in-the-crowdanonymity,andthatanyoneandeveryonecouldbethe audience for a date. Cities offered numerous public venues liketheatresandparks thatgaveconsiderableprivacy.Theyalsoofferedcommunity in the form of various convenient places—dance halls,cafes, ice-cream parlors, and so on—that would be adopted byparticular groups of friends, coworkers, or neighbors.[24]As withthe case of the longstanding European tradition of leisurelypromenades taken as a see-and-be-seen sort of ritual for the wholecommunity,American dating was an opportunity to scope out theoptions and the competitionwhile simultaneously showing yourselfoff. Itwasnot justwomenwhostoodtogainstatusandattention iftheirappearanceattractedhigh-qualitydates.Menwanteddateswhoseappearancereflectedwellonthemwhentheywereseentogether.

Particularly prior to World War II, the public nature of datingcreated a culture of competition that came to characterize thewholeproceeding.AshistorianBethBaileywritesinherrevealinghistoryoftwentieth-century dating,From Front Porch to Back Seat, “Youcompeted to become popular, and being popular allowed you tocontinue to compete.Competition was the key term in theformula.”[25] A particularly blatant system known as “rating anddating”existedoncollegecampusesfromthemid-1920suntilWorldWar II changed themood and removed enormous numbers ofmenfromuniversities.Potential dateswerequite literallygradedon theirworthinthedatingscene.AgroupofUniversityofMichiganwomenrated men fromA for “smooth” to D for “semigoon” and E for“spook.”[26]Womenwereratedeverybitasharshlybymen,makingmanywomenfeeldesperatetoprovethatthey“rated.”

139

Inalltheseways,datingculturewasnotsomuchthedeathknelloftraditional mate-finding practices as it was the coroner’s report.Courtshipsnolongermandatedlargerfamilyinvolvement,asmenandwomen physically, economically, and emotionally removed theirpursuitofloverelationshipsfromthefamily’sreach.Vestigesoftheoldersystemlingered,ofcourse.Parentsmighthaveprotractedfightswithchildrenovertheirchildren’stastesindatematerial,emphasizingjust how far out of themate-selection picture parents and extendedfamily had been pushed. Indeed, parents might not meet theirchildren’sromanticpartnersuntilarelationshipwaswellestablished.Meetingadate’sparentsforthefirsttimeisstillariteofpassagethatcontinuestounderscorejusthowlikelyitisthatadatingcouplemightcome from sufficiently different social circles that they would notalreadybecasuallyacquaintedwithoneanother’sfamilies.

Asdatingbecamemoreandmorepopular, romantic lovebecamesomething most people at least hoped they would personallyexperience. Rising industrial affluence and an abundance ofemploymentmeant economic survivalwasnot asdirectlydependenton marriage. Men and women both could increasingly afford toprolongcourtship,turningdatingintoaphaseoflifethatlastedyears.Courtshipbecamelessserious,atleastuptoapoint,insofarascallingoff a dating relationship was nothing like breaking an engagement.Marriagewasstilltheverypalpablegoalofdating.Butthegoalwasdistant and could be approached at leisure. There were plenty ofdetourswhere romantic lovecouldbeexperienced for itsownsake,withoutnecessarilyendinginmarriage.

Critics worried about the popularity of these new romanticdalliances.Wouldtheexpectationortheexperienceoffallinginlovelead to the development of unrealistic ideas aboutmarriage?Wouldthese crash courses in emotional excitement ruin young people,particularly young women, for the more complex love of a propermarriage?“Thesenomadsof theaffectionsgiveand take so little astheypass fromhand tohand,”MaudeRoydenwrote in1922, “thattheybecomecheapandhavelittlelefttogiveatlast;nordotheyreallyget what they would take. Men and women claim the right to

140

‘experience,’butexperienceofwhat?”[27]The experience that worried Royden was, of course, sexual

experience.Although it had been the Victorians, not their children,whohadbeenresponsibleforwhatEllenRothmanhascharacterizedas“theinventionofpetting,”[28]itseemsthattheseVictorianparents,likemanysince,wereterrifiedatthethoughtthattheirchildrenmightexperiment sexually in the same ways they had themselves. Oncursoryexaminationitseemsthattheoldergenerationmightnothavehadtoomuchtoworryabout:thefewsurveysofsexualbehaviorthatexist from the early decades of the twentieth century indicate thatactualsexualintercoursebeforemarriageremainedararity.Butontheotherhand,thedatingsystemhadconsiderablychangedthepictureofpremaritalsexuality.Youngpeoplehadmanymoreopportunitiesforthe kinds of noncoital sexual play commonly included under theheading of “necking and petting,” and with more partners.Possibilities for casual, noncoital promiscuity were thick on theground.

These sexual opportunities had a distinctive economic side.Because of the nature of the date and the need to “go out,”companionshiphadapricetag.Itwasnotentirelyunlikethedynamicsofprostitution,andmenwhopaidfordatesfeltjustifiedinexpecting“thrills” inreturnfor their investment.Theyfrequentlygot them.AsBethBaileyputsit,“Whatmenwerebuyinginthedatingsystemwasnot just female companionship, not just entertainment—but power.Money purchased obligation; money purchased inequality; moneypurchasedcontrol.”[29]

Ifdatingseemedmoreperilousthanearliermodesofcourtship,itwas because in many ways it was. There wasmore privacy, moreautonomy, andmore danger.Manymore women of a much widerrange of socioeconomic classes were subject to sexualcommoditization and exploitation on the a la carte basis of the datethanhadpreviouslybeenthecase.Buttherewasmoretothepictureforwomenthanjustdangerandexploitation.Sexcouldbeasourceofpower, pleasure, and profit for them, too. So-called “charity girls”werelikenedtoprostituteswhoprovidedcharityservicebecausethey

141

gave sexual favors (possibly but not necessarily includingintercourse)inexchangeforthevariousthingsthatadatemightbuy,including meals, entertainment, and gifts. And of course such“irregularrelations”mightbebasedinmutualrespectandaffectionaswell. Women’s greater sexual latitude could even be viewed as afeminist victory. “Ethically it is better than prostitution,” AlisonNeilanswrote in1936,“becausesuchrelations, thoughtheymaybetemporary, are not necessarily promiscuous on either side, and areoftenbasedonsomefriendshipandlikingandonmutualinterests.Tosome intelligent feminists this newapproach to a single standardofmoralsrepresentsthefinaltriumphoftheequalitymovement;tothemthisis,atlast,freedom.”[30]

TEENAGERSINLOVEAt about the speedof the automobile,which swiftly became an all-but-indispensible accessory to a date, dating spreadout of the citiesand into the suburbsandcountryside.At first aprimarilyAmericanphenomenon,italsobegantospreadelsewhereintheWest.Whereveritwent,ittookwithitanewuniversal:teenagersinlove.

Datinghadbecomemuchmorethanjustapathtomarriage.BythetimeoftheSecondWorldWar,datinghadbecomeaphaseoflife,aperiodbetweenchildhoodandsettled,marriedadulthood.Onecouldspeakofayoungpersonwhowas“oldenoughtobedating”butstill“tooyoungtogetmarried.”Thisphaseoflifecoincided,moreorless,with a period commonly called “youth” but also increasingly“adolescence,” a term popularized by American psychologistGranvilleStanleyHall.

Adolescencewas a realmof emotion.To an extent thatwas not,Hall claimed, trueeither for childrenor adults, adolescentswere thesubjectsof“stormandstress,”anintenseandreactiveemotionalityallitsown.[31]Oneofadolescence’shallmarkswastheawakeningofaconscious interest in sexand love.Adolescents,Hallbelieved,were“psychologically in the condition ofAdam andEvewhen they firstknewtheywerenaked.”[32]Thisvulnerablestagehadtobemanagedcarefully, lest “premature or excessive experience in Venusberg”

142

foreverbarthemfrombeingabletoachieveidealadultrelationships.[33] Hall and others like him strongly encouraged parents andeducatorstokeeptheirhandontherudderofthedatinghabitsoftheyoungandtoactivelyeducatethemaboutlove,sothatlovecouldbe“lesshaphazardandlesspurelysentimental”andtheywouldnotfallpreytosexualpromiscuity.[34]

Dating, in this context, could be a form of education, a way ofwading experimentally along the shores of the great sea of adult,married sexuality. Part of what made it acceptable was that beforeWorld War II, dating was not generally expected to involveexclusivityoremotionaldepth.“Playingthefield,”atleastintheory,wassaferfortheyoungandofferedtheopportunitytomeetandgettoknowavarietyofpotentialmates.

Thenthingschanged.Inwhatcouldbecharacterizedasadesperateend-run around the harsh prewar world of dating-and-ratingcompetition, couples began to take a different approach. Serialmonogamy, in the form of “going steady,” became the norm fordating.[35]Atthesametime,theageofmarriageplummeted,duetoacombination of factors that included relief at the end of a long andbrutal war plus enormous postwar economic activity. People weremarryingearlier,andtheirmarriagescameastheculminationofaverydifferent type of dating, one whose expectations of monogamy,exclusivity, and emotional intensity couldmuchmore accurately bedescribedas“playingmarriage.”

PriortoWorldWarII,“goingsteady”hadbeenthestageatwhichdating became courtship, where the popularity-oriented antics ofdating and rating turned to a more serious dynamic that at leastimpliedeventualmarriage.By theearly1950s,playing the fieldhadvirtually vanished, and coupleswent steady from the outset.Datingcoupleswere“boyfriend”and“girlfriend”tooneanotherrather thanjust “dates,” complete with all the accompanying connotations ofromanticloveandmonogamy.

As the age of marriage dropped, so did the age at which bothadolescenceanddatingwereslatedtobegin.In1961,aprofessoroffamily relations at Pennsylvania State University, Carlfred B.

143

Broderick,studiedchildreninanearbyschooldistrictandfoundthatabout 40 percent of the fifth graders were already dating.[36] Thislengthyeducationinmale-femalecoupledomdidnotnecessarilyhavemuch to do with finding a mate. Dates didn’t merely focus onattending entertainments likemovies;datingwas anentertainment. Itwasahobby,achallenge,andsomethingtodoonaSaturdaynight.One went out on dates not only because one hoped eventually tomarryorbecausenotdatingwasasocialfauxpas.Onediditbecauseitwas—atleastintheory—fun.Theupsanddowns,butparticularlytheneurochemicalhighsofinfatuationandtheswoonsofromancing,became the obsessive subject of literally thousands of pop songs,teen-focusedmovies,andadizzyingarrayofperiodicals.

Emotional pleasure for its own sake was becoming part of theethosofheterosexuality.AscriticMargaretKornitzerwrotein1932,“The fluffy-headed are persuaded that having a good time is notmerelyriskyamusement,butis,infact,thewaytogetthemostoutoflife....Theseriousareintellectuallyassuredthatself-gratificationisakind of sacred mission connected with their rights.”[37] This “funmorality,”asStephanieCoontzcharacterizesit,madeitpermissibletojudgedatesnotonhowwellsuited theywereaspotentialmatesbutsimplyonthebasisofwhetherornottheywereagoodtime.

Butnotallpleasurewas thesame.Whichkindsofpleasurewerepermissible or important, and whose pleasures should set thepriorities of dating, were difficult questions. Whether or not theunmarriedwouldengageinsexualactivitybecameamorefraughtandintense decision as dating turned into “going steady,” in large partbecause it centered around a stylized version of romantic love.“Makingout”wasafairlystandardpartofdating.Butdeclarationsofromanticlovemightuptheante.Eachsymbolicmoveinthedirectionofmarriage—whether or not itwas sincere, andwhether or not therelationshipevergotthere—wasmorelikelythanthelasttoopenthegatestoactualintercourse.[38]

It had been some time since love was expected to emerge post-maritally out of a diligently conducted and prudently chosenpartnership.Nowitwasalsocomingtoseemquainttoexpectloveto

144

betheresultof theheaven-sentmeetingandintertwiningofselfless,kindredadultsouls.Asadramaofpleasureandpower,romancewascoming to be seen as an inherent part of the adolescent Sturm undDrang. But it was also, and simultaneously, a form of emotionalentertainmentreflectedinthousandsofsonglyricsandmovieplots,agoal to be obsessively striven for, and an experience that meantemotional authenticity and social success. The 1959 plaint of DionandtheBelmonts,“WhymustIbeateenagerinlove?”waspurelyarhetorical question. What else, indeed, could any midcenturyAmericanadolescenthaveaspiredtobe?

LOVEISABATTLEFIELD“Theonlypositionforwomeninthemovementisprone,”civilrightsleader Stokely Carmichael said, faced with Ruby Doris SmithRobinson’s 1964 critique of the sexism faced by women in theStudent Non-violentCoordinating Committee (SNCC). ThroughouttheWestandespeciallyinNorthAmerica,the1960swerebringingina culture-rattling tide of political and social criticism, struggle, andchange. Activists and rabble-rousers were smashing idols andquestioning almost every realm of society except, it seemed, forrelationsbetweenmenandwomen.

Themenofthe1960sLeft,bornandraisedinthestrictlygenderedculture of post–World War IIAmerica, tended to view women assupportstaffandsexualoutlets,justastheirAtomicAgeupbringingstaughtthemtodo.Thisviewwascompoundedbyemergingattitudestowardwomen’s sexuality that centered around progressive politicsand the Pill. “Free love” was fast becoming synonymous withthrowing off Establishment shackles and getting rid of “hang-ups.”The Pill made pregnancy worries a thing of the past. All knownsexually transmitteddiseaseswerecurablewithantibiotics.Muchofthereasonthatthe“sexualrevolution”happenedwhenitdidwasthatmedical science had rendered two of themain barriers to unfetteredsexual activity fairly easy to overcome. But women had not hadenoughsocialandeconomicautonomyforalongenoughtimetohavedevelopedmanyeffectivewaysofrefusingtobeshuntedintotherole

145

ofstafftomen.Theyalsohadfewworkablewaysofsayingnotosexwith them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, fewmen, even on the far Left,evincedmuchproblemwiththis.

Women,ontheotherhand,gotfedupwithbeingsaddledwiththeday-to-day“shitwork”ofpolitical action and the emotional care andsexual servicingofpoliticallyactivemen.Largenumbersofwomenabandonedthemale-dominatedNewLefttoconcentrateonfeminism.Like the“firstwave” feministsof thenineteenthandearly twentiethcenturies, this “secondwave”of feminists banded together because,although it was a time of generally greater social and politicalsensitivityandstruggleforchange,women’sspecificconcernsaboutsex,gender,andthepowerimbalanceoftenstillwentunheard.First-wavewomenhaddominatedcampaigns forproperty- andmarriage-law reform and women’s right to the vote. Second-wave womenwantedsomethingevenmoresweeping:anendtodiscriminationandunequaltreatmentbasedonsexinallrealmsofpublicandprivatelife.Itwasatallorder.Buttherewasanoddlystickyobstacle:love.

The desire for love spurred women to conform to culturalexpectationsthattheywouldshapethemselvessocially,behaviorally,andphysically inorder toattractmen.Once theydid find lovewithmen,theylookedtomarriage,wifedom,andmotherhoodasthewaystomakelovelast.Romanticheterosexuallove,itwasclaimed,shapedwomen’sentirelivesinonewayoranother.Itwasseenastheforcethatopenedthedoortoawoman’sparticipationinawholesystemofmalepowerandfemalesubservience.

Not unreasonably, feminists questioned this. They had done sobefore. Many second-wave feminists, indeed, echoed CicelyHamilton’s1909plaint:“[U]nderpresentconditions,itisnoteasyfor[a]self-respectingwomantofindamatewithwhomshecanliveonthe terms demanded by her self-respect.”[39] Radical feminists likeTi-GraceAtkinson described love as the “psychological pivot” ofwomen’soppressionandcomplainedthat“perhapsthemostdamningcharacteristicofwomenis that, in thefaceofhorrifyingevidenceoftheirsituation,theystubbornlyclaimthat,inspiteofeverything,they‘love’theirOppressor.”[40]

146

Some feminists insisted that the solutionwas to refuse lovewithmen. Martha Shelley, a member of the feminist group theRadicalesbians,wrotethat“[i]nordertothrowofftheoppressionofthemalecaste,womenmustunite—wemust learn to loveourselvesandeachother,wemustgrowstrongandindependentofmensothatwe can deal with them from a position of strength.” She went on,protesting thatwomen are “told to beweak, dependent, and loving.Thatkindofloveismasochism.Lovecanonlyexistbetweenequals,not between the oppressed and the oppressor.”[41] ShulamithFirestone likewise recommended thatbecausewomenwere sooftendefinedbyloverelationshipswithmen,thebestcourseofactionwasto do without them. Such scathing indictments and harsh demandswere far from popular. Even other feminists found them hard toswallow.[42] But at the same time, such uncompromising critiquesdidpiercetheextremelydurablearmorofthedoxaofromanticlove.

Second-wave feminism, particularly its radical wing, helpedexposeacentralproblemwiththeconceitthatheterosexualityandallitstrappingswereallofanatural,seamless,perhapsevenGod-givenpiece.BeforetheVictorians,littlethoughtwasgiventothenatureofattractionsandemotionsbetweenwomenandmen.Itwassimplythewaythingswere,God’sorNature’swayoftakingcareofbusiness.Victorian culture had looked a bit closer and parsed out moreindividualbits,yetstilltheargumentthatthestatusquowas“natural”or“Godgiven”underlaymostunderstandingsoftherelationsbetweenmenandwomen.Women’seroticdesirewasoftenconflatedwiththedesireformotherhood,women’sloveofmenwiththeloveofbeingmasteredbythem.FreudandHavelockEllisdweltatlengthoninnatefemale masochism and the role it played in creating a gender-normative, male-dominant hierarchy in love, marriage, and society.Certainlythecoiningof“heterosexual”didnothelpto teaseoutfinedistinctions, putting a falsely unifying stamp on a vast, complextopography of male/female interaction. The feminists of the secondwave dismantled and denied such essentialist “biology is destiny”messages,replacingthemwith“thepersonalispolitical.”

At the same time an increasing number of women, feminist-

147

identified and not, began to treat heterosexuality as a buffet fromwhich they could pick and choose. Vastly wider options foreconomic, legal, and reproductive autonomy, many the result ofexplicitlyfeministeffort,meantthatwomenhadmoreabilitytodecidewhich,ifany,partsoftheheterosexualsystemtheywantedtopartakeof.Womenwholovedmencoulddosowithorwithoutmarriage,ifnotnecessarilywithoutcontroversy.Marriagegraduallybecamelessofarequirementforformingahousehold,havingandraisingachild,andbeingpartofafamily.Atthesametimeandforthesamereasons,italsobecameeasierforwomentoexpresstheirloveofotherwomen.Gayandlesbianrightsorganizationsemergedoutofsimilarferment,seekingacceptance,liberty,andideologicalandculturalchange.Lovewasstillimportant.Itstillcarriedalotofexpectations.Butthehorseandcarriageofloveandmarriagehadbeenuncoupled.Loveroamedmorefreelywithoutthebulkycarriageintow.

Whatwaslove,then?Howdiditwork?Whatdiditmean?Wasitvoluntaryor involuntary,strategicorspontaneous?Wasituniversal,payingnoheedtosillythingslikegenderandsex,orwasitsomehowrootedinbiology?Diditobligatecertainbehaviors—likemarriageorhaving children—orwas it complete in and of itself? Itwas harderthan ever to imagine love as being simple and inevitable, asGod’simprimaturonaunionbetweenamanandawoman,orasevidenceofanatural“magnetism”betweenoppositesinabiologicalbinary.Therewassimplynologicbywhichonecouldpinthewholeapparatusofbehavior, belief, and culture we like to call “heterosexuality” onsomething as variable, as mercurial, and as vexingly resistant toanalysisaslove.

Wecontinuetowrestlewiththesequestions.OurDisneyDamage—or romantic novel damage, if you prefer—with its deep-seatedlonging to believe in love’s transformational, life-perfecting magic,clashes with medical science that reveals love’s euphoria to be theresult of dopamine and norepinephrine, two chemicals produced bythebrainwhenwefallinloveorusedrugslikecocaine.Ourhopefulfaith that shared lovebetweenwomenandmencanbea foundationfor egalitarian partnerships has to contend with our awareness that

148

love isexploitedonadailybasiswhen it isused to tetherpeople toabusive and violent relationships. We spend billions yearly on thediets,gyms,clothes,cosmetics,andotheraccessoriesweusetomakeourselves loveable, sexy, and attractive, and we spend millions ofdollarsandhoursontherapyandrehabcentersandmeetingsofSexand LoveAddicts Anonymous, desperate to shed our feelings ofdependenceandhelplessnessinthefaceoflove.

As a culture, we are fairly sure that heterosexuality is natural,normal,anddesirable,andthatheterosexualloveisamonglife’smostvalidating and positive experiences. We organize heterosexualityaroundtheprincipleoflovenowmorethanwehaveatanytimeinthepast—the experience of romantic love is what legitimizes not onlymarriage,butseparately legitimizessexualactivityand thehavingofchildren as well. Yet this love experience, this inherent part ofheterosexualexistence, it seems,canalsobeasanarchic,as fleeting,andaspronetoslipoutofourcontrolasourancestorswarnedusitwouldbe.Perhaps this, asmuchas anything, explains the enduringfantasy allure of the happily-ever-afters of theWonderfulWorld ofDisney,themoodysparkly-vampireloveandangstoftheblockbusterTwilightnovels,and theshelvesuponshelvesof romancenovels ineverybookstore.Onlyinfictionandfantasyistheheterosexual“loveadventure” somethingwe cangenuinely control, and therefore trust,regardlessofhowhardwetrytomakeourreal-lifeheterosexualityinitsimage.

149

CHAPTERSIX

ThePleasurePrinciple

It was a stupendous thing, and at fifty pounds a night, in the lateeighteenthcentury, itbetterhavebeen.JamesGraham’sGrandStateCelestial Bed surrounded its occupants with “celestial and electricalfire,” serenaded themwithmusic, tantalized themwith “stimulatingvapours,” anddazzled their eyeswith a veritable forest of gleamingglass columns and a romantic canopy of flowers and caged turtledoves,allthebettertospurthemontotheveryheightsoflove.TheCelestialBedwasnovel,butnotnew.Therehasalwaysbeenanarrayofthings—oysters,champagne,Spanishfly,heart-shapedhottubs—that are supposed to goad us to the heights of sexual ecstasy.Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an aphrodisiac, asubstance that incites sexual desire from nothing. But there isdefinitely such a thing as the placebo effect. The word “placebo,”Latinfor“Ishallplease,”hasbeeninmedicalusesincetheeighteenthcentury.Hopespringseternal in thehumanbreast,andelsewhere intheanatomytoo.

Intheend,though,asthespendthriftGrahamwasrudelyremindedwhenhewentbustin1784andhadtosellmostofhisbelongings,abedwasonlyabed.Andindeed,today’sED(“erectiledysfunction”)drugsareonlyvasodilators.Formany,theirdocumentableeffectsareaboutthesameasGraham’stilting,chiming,perfume-emittingtempleto sexual intercourse: they work about as well as you believe theywill. Research indicates that Viagra and its relatives inthe class ofdrugscalledPDE5inhibitorsareeffectiveatimprovingerectionsonlyamongmenwhoactuallyhavepre-existingproblemswithbloodflowtothepenis.[1]Contrary towhatmanybelieve,PDE5drugscannotgive healthymen harder or quicker erections than theywould have

150

otherwise, prolong orgasm, or intensify sexual sensation. Yetthousandsofmeneverydayshellout fivedollarsormoreperdosefor PDE5 drugs, with Pfizer alone making $466 million in Viagrasales in 2009.Weightlifters take them to try to mask the infamousdicklimpening sideeffectsof steroiduse, andmenwho takeProzacand other libido-dampening antidepressants sometimes resort toFather’s Little Helpers. The CIA has even used Viagra to bribeAfghani warlords.[2] Since Viagra first became available in 1998,over 25millionmen around the world have taken the aggressivelymarketed, aggressively priced, erection-promoting drugtherapeutically,recreationally,andasasecurityblanket.[ 3]Thedrugsare perhaps the most frequently illegally marketed prescriptionpharmaceuticalsintheworld(asIwrotethisparagraph,aspame-mailarrived in my in-box, exhorting me to buy Viagra from a shadyInternetpharmacyso I could“BeherCEO inLoveMaking!”).Butfor vast swathes of themenwho take them, PDE5 drugs are—justlikeeveryothersubstancetoutedasanaphrodisiacsincethedawnoftime—objectivelydoingnothingmuch.

Viagra and its relatives are admittedly more pharmaceuticallycomplicatedthan,say,oystersorchampagne.Butthemajorityofmenwho consume PDE5 drugs do not actually have the cardiovascularconditionsthatitalleviates,orsufferfromvascular-relatedimpotence.Evenwhentheydo,thisisn’tthemainfocusforsomeonewhotakesaPDE5 drug. These drugs are sold and taken as pleasure drugs.Pharmaceuticalcompaniesacknowledgethis.TheiradcampaignsforPDE5drugsdepict snugglingcouples, suburbanwivesbeing sweptoff their feet, and, in the 2007 “Viva Viagra!” campaign, grayingdudebros in a lamentably funk-freegarageband, jammingabout thejoysofchemicallyenhancedsex.MyfavoriteViagraad,aSpanish-languageprintad I sawsomeyearsago, simplyshowsan imageofthe distinctive blue pill with the text “Un divorciomenos. Gracias,Pfizer.”(“Onelessdivorce.Thanks,Pfizer.”)Thesubtext,thatalackofhusbandlyerectionsmeanta lackofpleasurablesex for thewife,and in turna loomingdivorce, speaksvolumesabout theplaceof aparticular version of sexual pleasure in our current version of

151

heterosexuality.Viagramightnotseemtohavealottodowithsexualorientation.

A drug is a drug, and works the same way on those who take itregardless of their sexual preferences or partners.But themodel ofpleasurethatViagraismarketedtoservehasagreatdeal todowithsexualorientation.Viagrahasonlyonemajorclinicaluse,whichfirstappearedasasideeffectwhensildenafilwasstillindevelopment:tocreate erections, the irreducible bona fide of male-identified sexualperformancesincebeforethefirstPaleolithiccavepainterscrawledaphallusonarockwall.[4]Whattheyaremarketingasgeneratingandwhat they do in actuality generate—in the users forwhom they arecapable of generating anything at all—is the ability to perform aparticularkindofsexualact.Anerectpeniscanpenetrateanyorifice.ButViagraadsmakeitclearthatViagra-fuelederectionsareintendedfor vaginal penetration, the one distinctive act of “heterosexual sex”and the only fully legitimate source of sexual pleasure for most ofWesternhistory.

UNGUILTYPLEASURESInavery realway, thehardpenisisheterosexualsexualactivity. Invirtually every era, in virtually every culture we know, to be asexuallyactivemaleistopenetratewiththepenis,andtobeasexuallyactivefemaleistobepenetratedbyone.Notfornothingarelesbianssometimes raped by those who think it will convert them to a“correct” heterosexual appreciation for the penetrating penis. Themedieval English take on itwas that in sex, there are two partners,“theman that doeth and thewoman that suffereth.”[5]This did notmeanthatthewomansufferedpainorwasmademiserablebysex.Itmeant that theman, not thewoman, engaged in sexual activity—hepenetrated—whilethewomanmerelypermittedittobedone.

FormostofWesternhistory thepenetrationof thevaginaby thepenis was not merely the only sanctioned form of sexual activitybetweenmenandwomen;italsoseemstohaveactuallybeentheformofvirtuallyallsexualactivitybetweenmenandwomen.Prior to theeighteenthcenturywehaveonlyscantevidenceofothertypesofsex

152

actstakingplaceatall,andmostoftheevidencewehavecomesfrommedical or legal accounts in which nonintercourse acts are beingframedasproblematic,sinful,orillegal.Thisdoesnotmeanthatnoneofourforebearsexperimentedwith,let’ssay,performingoralsexonone another. Undoubtedly some of them did. But the evidencesuggests that they probably didn’t do so in great numbers or withgreatfrequency.

Weknowverylittle,actually,aboutwhatkindsofsexmostofourancestors had, how they felt about it, or whether they had anyintellectualconceptofwhytheyenjoyedthethingstheydid.Theydidnot, as a rule, spend a great deal of time woolgathering about thewhys andwherefores of their own sexual experience.What we doknow, from the law books, medical tomes, and religious texts thathavesurvived,isthatpenis-in-vaginaintercourseistheonlysourceofsexualpleasurethathasnever,sofaraswecantellfromthehistoricalrecord,beenchallenged.

No other specific sex act enjoys, or has ever enjoyed, universalapprobation. No other source of sexual pleasure is as uniformlyaccepted,orhaseverbeen.Thefortunesofallothersexactsandallother sources of sexual pleasure have varied widely. Sex betweenmales might’ve been acceptable to the ancient Greek elite, and isincreasinglyacceptable inmuchof theWest today,buthascertainlynot always been seen as a permissible form of sex or a legitimatesource of pleasure. Masturbation and mutual masturbation, analpenetration,andfellatiohavebeenacceptedatsometimesandinsomeplaces and not in others, even when performed by a different-sexcouple.Cunnilingus,forreasonsprobablyhavingtodowithitslackoffocusonthemale’sdirectpleasure,hasuntilquiterecentlyindeedbeen considered at least déclassé and perhaps even a disturbing,feminizing perversion. But penetrating a woman’s vagina with anerect penis and taking pleasure in that experience have never beenperceivedasanythingother thanunderstandable,natural,and indeedinevitable.

Even the Catholic Church fathers, despite their profoundresentmentofthebodyanditsappetites,couldnotbringthemselvesto

153

callfortheoutrightabolitionofpenis-in-vaginaintercourse.Becauseof its apparent compliancewithGod’s reproductivewill, itwas thesolesexualactofwhichtheycouldbringthemselvestoapprove.TheChristianpartylineonwhatsexwasfor,asAugustinephrasedit,was“proles, fides, sacramentum”—children, faithfulness, and thesacramentofmarriage.Pleasuredidnotofficiallyenterintoit.Churchfathers like St. Clement recommended a cool, distant approach tosexual activity, engaging in sex out of reason, not out of desire.Pleasuremightdistractthebeliever,oreventempthimintoprioritizingthe pursuit of sex over the pursuit of holiness. Ideally, a goodChristianwould think of sexual pleasure asmerely a side effect ofdoing God’s bidding to “be fruitful and multiply.”As the Churchgrewanditsdoctrinesolidified,sodiditsattitudethatsexualpleasure,even insanctified,penetrativevaginalsexbetween thedulymarried,couldbetoleratedbutnotcelebrated.Andtherethematterrested.

Ordidit?Inpractice,Churchinfluenceandahealthyappreciationfor the joy of sex existed side by side. People were no lesscomplicatedthenthantheyarenow,andourancestorsweremorethancapable of simultaneously believing in the Church’s priorities andbeing enthusiastically interested in their own sexual pleasure. Theperennialexistenceofprostitutestestifiestothis,asdothereportswesee of male same-sex activity. In fact, even though rulers weretechnically as strictly obligated to canon law as anyone else,governmentsoccasionallyusedsexualpleasureasacarrottomotivatethepublicwhen thestickof legalactionandreligiouscondemnationhad failed. RuthMazo Karras cites the example of Florence, Italy,which in 1403 commissioned anUfficiali dell’Onesta, or Office ofHonesty, to open an official municipal whorehouse.[6] Florentineofficials of the time perceived the city as suffering from a sodomyepidemic.TheirhopewasthatbyofferingFlorentinementheoptionof the more legitimate pleasure of sex with women (even if theyweren’t married to them), they might give up the scandalouslyillegitimatepleasuresofsexwithmen.

Medievalliteraturelikewisetestifiesthatsexualpleasurewasmuchon people’s minds. In Chaucer’s “Miller’s Tale,” a young and

154

sexually vital wife named Alisoun, married to an old gulliblecarpenter,becomesalustobjectforboththestudentNicholasandtheyoungclerkAbsalom,whosemachinationsintryingtobedherdrivethestory.Drinkingsongs,poems,andother texts likewise showusthatsexbetweenwomenandmenwasvaluedaspleasure,aboveandbeyonditsreproductivepotentialoritsroleinmarriage.Inthefamouscollectionofeleventh-and twelfth-centurystudentsongsandpoemscalledtheCarminaBuranaisthislittlerhyme,famouslysettomusicbyCarlOrff:

Sipuercumpuellulamorareturincellula,felixconiunctio.Amoresuccrescente,pariteremediopropulsoprocultaedio,membris,lacertis,labiis.

Ifaboyandagirllingerinalittleroom,theymakeahappyunion.Loveincreases,bothfindthatboredomisdrivenfaraway,andanineffablegameisplayedWithlegs,arms,lips.Inasense,thereweretwoworldswhenitcametosexualactivity.

IntheidealizedworldoftheChurch,sexualactivitywastobeavoidedwhenever possible and even the most correct penis-in-vaginaintercoursewastobeasdispassionateaspossible.Inthemessyandnecessarily pragmatic world of everyday men and women, on theotherhand,fewwereabletoliveuptothereligiousstandardandfewseem to have tried. Medieval and Renaissance people, indeed,believedthatwomenwereifanythingmorelustfulthanmen,andthat

155

theytookgreatpleasureinpenetrativesex.Butjustastherewerestrictlimitsonwhat sexualpleasureswere legitimate,doxawasalso firmaboutwhatwomenweresupposedtofindpleasurable inhavingsexwithmen.

AGIRL’SBESTFRIEND?“They[women]receivepleasurefromthemotionoftheseedthatisinthem,” tenth-century Muslim physician Ibn Sina (also known asAvicenna)wroteinatextthat,inLatintranslation,wasastandardofWestern medicine for centuries. “They receive pleasure from themotionoftheman’sseedinthemouthofthewomb,descendingfromthewomb.”Thirteenth-centuryAlbertusMagnusclaimedthatwomenhad more pleasure from sex than men, because women not onlyemittedtheirownsemenbutreceivedtheman’semission,whilemenmerelygottodischarge.Somealsobelieved,aftertheclassicopinionsof Galen, that semen itself induced the urge for penetrative sex, “aserous, irritating humor that produces a most demanding itch inprecisely that part of the body contrived by Nature to behypersensitivetoit.”[7]

It could be argued, as indeed it has been, that male physiciansdescribedwomen as getting sexual pleasure from exactlywhatmenwantedthemtoenjoy.CertainlyIbnSina’sassertionsdidn’thurtthecauseofmalepenetrationany.But therewasmoreto themthanjustself-service. Ibn Sinawas, in some degree,merely telling the truth.Somewomendoenjoy,physicallyorpsychologicallyorboth,havingamalepartnerejaculateinsidetheirvaginas.Accordingtothehumoralmodels of the era, it made perfect medical sense that they would.Semen,definedaccordingtoAristotleandhiscolleagues,wasliterallythe essence of life, a distilled form of thepneuma or breath. Thismadeejaculationboth themost importantpartof any sexual act andthemostpotentiallyrisky:pneuma, likeblood,wasafiniteresource,andamancouldsufferterriblyifhelosttoomuch.Beingmasculine,andcomposedofbreath,semenhadthequalitiesofheatanddryness,traits that the cool, dense, andwet female body tended to lack.Themasculine body, being more “perfected” than the feminine, did not

156

require infusions of these feminine characteristics, but femininebodiesbenefitedenormouslyfromperfectingdosesofmasculineheat.Women derived pleasure from ejaculation because it literally put agoodhumorintothem.

Thisprovedasurprisinglylong-livedidea.Aslateas1928,BritishsexeducatorMarieStopesmadeanonlyslightlymodernizedversionofthesameclaim.Sheupdatedherimageryfromahumoralsystemtoa chemical one, but left the nature of the interaction convenientlyvaguewhensheclaimedthatfemale“hungerfornourishment insexunion is a true physiological hunger to be satisfied only by thesupplying of the actual molecular substances lacked by hersystem.”[8] Again—still—on some semimystical, semibiologicallevel,semensatisfiedwomen.

Penile penetration and the ejaculation of semen into the vaginawerethereforelegitimatepleasuresbothforwomenandformen.Buttheycouldalsobedangerous.Womenwhodevelopedanunrestrainedappetiteforsuchpleasurecould,itwasbelieved,debilitateorevenkilltheir men, draining them with relentless demand. “Of woman’sunnatural, insatiable lust,” complained Richard Burton in the 1621Anatomy of Melancholy, “what country, what village doth notcomplain?”Thefantasyoftheinsatiabledestructivewoman—femmesfatales,sirens,and“blackwidows”arealldescendedfromthisidea—gotthebetteroftheculturalimagination.[9]Thereisnoevidencethatany community ever actually has found itself plagued by sex-madwomen, and in any event there is also no evidence that repeatedejaculation does anything worse to men than to make themtemporarilyabitdehydratedandtired.Butfactswereneverthepointof the specter of the draining, deadly, hypersexed woman. Eventoday,theimageofthemonstrous,devouringwomanisbrandishedasacautionarytale inmoviesandtelevisionandsometimesinreal life:thesearethevoraciousantiheroinesoffilmslikeFatalAttractionandfindreal-lifeechoesintheactionsofmurdererslikeAileenWuornosor CarolynWarmus. In the hollows and hills of ruralAppalachia,people still speak of “white-livered widows,” women whose “highnature”haskilledseveral(usuallyyounger)husbands,drainedoftheir

157

lifeforcebythewoman’sinveteratehungerforsex.[10]The mix of approval, fear, and distaste are telling. Vaginal

penetration and ejaculation were, as they still are, seen as good,legitimateactsinwhichbothmenandwomentakepleasure.Butevenwhenwomendesirewhat they’re supposed todesire, and take theirpleasurefrommaleorgasmachievedthroughvaginalpenetration,itismade very clear that toomuch desire is wrong, damaging, perhapsliterally deadly. The underlyingmessage thatwomen andmen alikearemeant to take from these proclamations aboutwomen, pleasure,and semen is that women are supposed to want and like men’sejaculationsandsemen,butnevermorethanthemendo.

ANEED-TO-KNOWBASISAsthemiddleclassemerged,sodiditsownparticularversionoftherules of legitimate sex and pleasure centered on the marriedhousehold,thenuclearfamily,andthegenerationofalimitednumberof well-bred, carefully educated children. It idealized marital sexsimultaneouslyasaresponsetotrueloveandasasolemn,quasicivicresponsibility. Intercourse between married couples was to bedeliberate,notspontaneous,aperfectlyorchestratedjointundertakingof heads, hearts, and reproductive organs. Physician John Cowan,author ofScience of aNew Life (1897), earned the endorsement ofleadingfeministslikeElizabethCadyStantonforhisrecommendationthat couples enjoy a single, transcendently beautiful, extremelyintentionalsexactpercarefullyplannedandmuch-wantedpregnancy.This was surely a bit extreme, to say nothing of impractical—conception is not quite so predictable and reliable as all that. Butvirtually all middle-class sex writers of the nineteenth centurycounseled some version of this restrained, deeply domesticated,extremely purposeful sex life. Sex once or twice a week wasconsideredquiteenough.Morefrequentsexriskedboth theevilsofsensualityandthedisorderofbodilydepletion.

For all its painstakingmoderation, though, this domesticated sexlife was also expected to provide pleasure, albeit not so muchspontaneously shared as jointly curated. Properly reared women of

158

the nineteenth-centurymiddle classeswere expected to have little inthe way of spontaneous lust of their own, their sexual capacitytheoreticallylayingdormantuntilmarriage.Atthatpoint,itwasuptothehusband to educatehisbride in thepleasuresof the flesh; in anidealisticspirit, thenovelistBalzacwrote inhis1826Physiologiedumarriage,“Thehusband’sself-interest,atleastasmuchashishonor,prescribes that heneverpermit himself apleasurewhichhehasnotthe talent tomakehiswifedesire.”Womenwere, if anything,moreobligated thanmen.Writing in 1889, thedoctorHenryG.Hanchettinformedthewife that itwasher“duty toherhusband,herchildrenandherself,toheartilyenjoywithherhusbandsexualintercourse,andtokeepherselfinsuchconditionthatshemayenjoyit.”[11]Middle-class sex between men and women was supposed to besimultaneouslymutual and also a thing that “themandoeth and thewomansuffereth.”

For those who followed these guidelines, they weresimultaneouslyawayofdemonstratingclass identity,away tohelpshapesociety,andawayofdefending themselvesand their familiesagainst thedeviance that seemed to threaten fromall sides.Nobilityandtheextremelywealthywereviewedaspoisonouslydecadentandself-indulgent,whiletheworkingclasseswerecommonlystereotypedas cheap sensualists who lacked either refinement or self-restraint.Thepoorwerebrutesandprimitiveswhocoulddonobetterandoftendid much worse. In the United States particularly, there was anadditionalracialelementtothesedistinctions.AfricanAmericanswerestereotypedasnotmerelylackingmiddle-classsexualrestraintandthehabit of experiencing refined emotions, but as being incapable ofthem.Thecarefullyregulatedsexuallivesofthewhitemiddleclasseswere part of their careful buffer against the terrifying prospect ofsocialandracialdisorder.

Sciencewas tobe their ally in this effort.Thenineteenth-centuryboom in academic, scientific, and popular commentary on sex wassomethinggenuinelynew.To the earlyEnlightenment, sexual urgeshad been considered hardly different from the needs to urinate,defecate,oreat.Buttheworldhadchanged,andsohadtheperception

159

ofthesexualinstinct.Inthenineteenthcenturyithadbecomeanall-powerfulforce,“amostpowerfulinfluence,”asDr.FrederickHollickputitin1885,“uponbothindividualactionanduponthedestiniesofnations.”[12]

SHAREDPLEASURESThis “most powerful influence” required a substantial anchor forsafety’s sake, and that anchor was the middle-class family. In thesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury,oneoftheformsthistookwasthe dramatic expansion of the literature on sex intended for thenonspecialist,nonmedicalaudience.Although therewereexceptions,likethefamousAristotlesMasterPiece,whichappearedfirstin1684and ran to some twenty-seven editions by the 1830s, sex manualsintended forageneral readershipwere fewand farbetweenprior tothe nineteenth-century explosion of both print and literacy. Theincreasing role of print in daily life in the later nineteenth century,however,metthenewdesireforsexinformationandeducationheadon, with the result that dozens of physicians and other biomedicalexperts—a group that admittedly incorporated some we might notincludetoday, likephrenologistOrsonFowler—leapt intoprintwithbooks that aimed to teach the middle classes how to conduct a“scientific”andpropersexlife.

Increasinglythesedoctorsandothersacknowledged,asinfluentialPhiladelphia physician and authorGeorgeNapheys did in his 1871ThePhysicalLifeofWoman, thatmostwomenhad sexual feelings.These were, they emphasized, entirely compatible with propriety,dignity, and, if channeled through the legitimizing conduits of truelove andmarriage, evenwith spiritual and social respectability. Thejewelinthecrownofacompanionatemarriage,theselateVictorianspreached,wasmutuallycrafted,mutuallysatisfyingsexualpleasure.

This represented something of a sea change for the Westernapproachtomarriage.Theofficialacceptanceoferoticismforitsownsakewas, in the face of thousands of years of procreation-focusedcopulation, fairly radical. Sowas the idea that the quality ofmaritalsex for both spouses actually mattered to the marriage itself. As

160

attitudesshifted,goodsexstartedtosignifybettermarriages,healthieroffspring, greater longevity, and a better quality of life. But whatexactly was “good sex”?And more to the point, how did one goabouthavingit?

These were, as was immediately apparent, questions primarilyabout women. Male sexuality was viewed as transparent. EvenHavelock Ellis, that inexhaustible chronicler of all things sexual,dismissedthemalesexdriveinasinglesentenceinhis1904StudiesinthePsychologyofSex:AnalysisoftheSexualImpulse:“[T]odealwith it broadly as awhole seems unnecessary, if only because it ispredominantly open and aggressive.”[13] Although impotenceoccasionally became an issue formen, their sexual functioning andpleasurewereanotherwiseforegoneconclusion.Mendidnothaveaproblemattainingsexualpleasure; theyonlyhadaproblemresistingthe impulses to have toomuch of it or get it in illicitways. Itwaswomenwhosebodies, impulses,and responseswere thepartof thepictureof“goodsex”thatwaschanging.

This, however, changed sex for men: there was, formally andofficially, more on their plates than just looking after their ownpleasure.Withtheacknowledgmentthatwomenfeltsexualdesireandpleasurecametheassertionthattheyshouldbefeelingmoreofit.Butwomen could not be expected to know how to do this all bythemselves.Theirhusbandsweretobetheirteachersintheschooloflove,andthiswasnotnecessarilyeasy.“Togainrealpossessionofawoman’ssoulandbody,”HavelockElliswrote,required“thewholeofaman’sbestskillandinsight.”[14]

Thesituationwasnotmademucheasierbythefactthatwhilethe“repeal of reticence” allowedmore open discussion about ideals ofpleasurable marital sex, it didn’t permit much more in the way ofdetailing actual technique. Sexologists and sex advisors waxedrapturous about the shared joys and benefits of properly conductedintercourse, and the destination of mutual orgasm—simultaneousmutual orgasmif it could bemanaged—was clear. But themap bywhich one was to get there was vague. Even after the turn of thecenturyhadyieldedtothenotoriouspermissivenessoftheJazzAge,

161

instructional descriptions rarely got much more graphic than thisexcerpt from Dr. Walter Robie’s 1922 Sex Histories: “A longsequence of endearments and gentle caresses, and final specificmanipulationofnipplesandclitoris,andperhapsadjacentstructures,to produce the overwhelming erotic feelings and the free flow ofprecoital mucus which are necessary to make coitus mutuallypleasurableandsimultaneouslyclimactic,bothofwhicharenecessaryifitistobescientificallycorrect.”[15]

The idea thatmutual orgasmwas “scientifically correct”was thewindow-dressingthatmadesexualtechniquediscussableeveninsuchbroadoutlineasthis.Justasthespiritualizationoflovehadmadetheintroductionofromancetomarriageacceptable,makingsexscientifichelpedtoestablishsexualtechniqueasatopicfitatleastfordiscreet,dulymarriedinquiry.

As expectations of mutual orgasm and of wives’ willing anddesirousparticipationinmaritalsexbecamemorewidespread,sodidthe anxiety of those who had not achieved what writerseuphemistically called “true marriage” or “the completed sex act,”namelymutualorgasm.Sexadvisorsreceivedhundredsofanguishedletters—Marie Stopes’s well-preserved correspondence includesapproximately five thousand—from people with a wide array ofsexual fears, faults, and complaints. Long-marriedwomenwho had“never felt anything” during intercoursewanted to knowwhat waswrongwiththem;menwhoejaculatedtooquicklytoprovidethetento twenty minutes of intercourse some writers recommended forproper female satisfaction wanted to know how to do better. Menabouttobemarriedwroteoftheirpanicthattheymightinadvertently,assexadvisorsclaimedwassooftenthecase,permanentlyruintheirwives through clumsy overeagerness on the wedding night. Hugenumbersofwomenpleaded forhelpwith contraception, saying thatwhat reallystoodbetween themandsexualenjoymentwasn’ta lackof interest but a fear of pregnancy. Forlorn husbands wonderedwhether it was inevitable that wives would simply never letthemselvesbeseeninthenude.

Declaring the standard of a “good sex life,” it seemed, opened a

162

Pandora’s box of previously unutterable and seemingly ubiquitousdissatisfaction.Someofthecausesofunhappinesswerethingsnosexadvisor,nomatterhowwellmeaning,couldhelpwith,andasizeableportionofthecausesexistedmostlyduetoconcernsthesexadvisorsthemselves had helped to create. Men, facing new vistas ofperformanceanxiety,couldnot resteasilyorhappily in theirwives’armsout of fear that theymight not bedoing the “job”of sexwellenough.

Women, of course, were also under pressure to perform. Evenbefore the heyday of Freud’s “vaginal orgasm” (about whichmorepresently),HavelockElliscontended,thewomanwhohadnotlearnedto want and enjoy sexual intercourse had “not acquired an eroticpersonality,shehasnotmastered theartof love,with theresult thather whole nature remains ill-developed and unharmonised, and thatshe is incapable of bringing her personality—having indeed noachievedpersonalitytobring—tobeareffectivelyontheproblemsofsocietyandtheworldaroundher.”[16]

Thisstoodatseriousoddswiththedoxawithwhichmostmiddle-class people had been raised in regard to female sexuality. Openacknowledgement of female desire and pleasure had for centuriesbeen deemed excessive, sinful, and destructive; synonymous withpromiscuity and prostitution. It is no wonder that people feltconfused, anguished, and frustrated.Nomatter howwillingwomenandmenweretotrytoachievethenewgoalofaneroticizedmarriage,they could not necessarily change their beliefs and emotions aboutwomen’sdesireandpleasureovernight.

Norcouldpeopleinstantlyreversedeeplyrootedbeliefsaboutthemorality of sexual acts other than intercourse. Sex authorities wereincreasinglywillingtoconsideranarrayofothertypesofstimulationas legitimate foreplay, so long as penis-in-vagina intercourse andaccompanyingorgasmsweretheultimateresult.Thisapproachwouldeventually providemen andwomenmanywelcome liberties.But topeople raised with the Victorian abhorrence of masturbation,encouragement to manually stimulate a wife’s clitoris might seemsuspect, to say the least.Although Walter Robie’s correspondence

163

features a letter fromawomanwho exulted in “husband’s hands—that they give a perfectly legitimate joy!,” Marie Stopes’scorrespondenceincludeslettersfromwomenwhowereterriblyupsetbyachievingorgasmthroughsuch“unnatural”means.[17]Althoughthere were those—likegynecologistAlice Bunker Stockham, whoadvocated approaches tomutual pleasure less procreatively orientedeventhanthis—theywereconsideredfaroutonthefringes.[18]Earlysexsurveys,suchasKatherineBementDavis’s1929FactorsintheSex Lives of 2200 Women, hint that more people were at leastconsidering erotic pleasure as one of the goods of marriage,independent of the potential for reproduction.Butmost people, andindeedmostsexauthorities,operatedonthesameage-oldassumptionthat the Freudian “vaginal orgasm” contingent would shortlyreinforce:thatpleasureinsexshouldbederivedfrompenis-in-vaginaintercourse,ifitwastobederivedatall.

By the eve of theSecondWorldWar,mutual sexual satisfactionwasheldtobenotjustacrucialingredientofsuccessfulmarriagebutprobablythecrucialingredient.EventheconservativeCentralYMCACollegeinChicagocouldstate,inits1932handbook,TheHygieneofMarriage,that“reproductionisneitherthesolenorthechiefpurposeof marriage,” but rather “the desire for sexual communion andcompanionship.”Although it seems fairly plain thatmany relativelyhappy and functionalmarriagesmust have coexistedwith sex livesthat did not live up to the high standards of the sex manuals, theintense emphasis on a sexually compelling marriage changed howpeoplethoughtandbehaved.Sexualdesireandsexualpleasurewerenewlyandopenlyon the tableasmarriageability issues,and in timetheywould be qualifications for premarital relationships aswell. Inwaysthathadneverbeforebeentrue,sexappealandthepromiseofsexual competence became important criteria in the selection of aboyfriend,agirlfriend,oraspouse.Sexwasnolongeronly,orevenprimarily,theultimatephysicalmanifestationofthespiritualunionoftrue romantic love that it had been for earlier Victorians. Eroticpleasure,albeitbyaparticularandmanneredapproach,wasanewlyofficialstandardforheterosexualrelationships.

164

COPULATIONONTHECOUCHThisbringsusbacktoFreud,whosebourgeoisVienneseupbringing,education, and social standing gave him the useful vantage point ofbeingabletoprobethemostdifficultquestionsofsexuality’sorigins,development, and influences among the very population mostconcernedaboutthem.AmongthemanybeliefsFreudsharedwithhisgenerallywell-offbourgeoispeerswasadeep,nearlymysticalbeliefintheimportanceofpenis-in-vaginacopulation.

Additionally,FreudacceptedfromKrafft-Ebingtheideathattherewasahumanattributecalled“heterosexuality.”Krafft-Ebinghadusedthewordmore or less as a synonym for an ultimately reproductivedrivetowardmale/femalepenetrativesex.Freudexpandedonthis innovel ways. For Freud, as Jonathan Ned Katz points out,“heterosexual” is not merely a noun but frequently an adjective,describinga“drive,”a“love,”an“instinct,”anda“desire,”aswellasa sexual activity and a type of person.[19] In Freud’s thinking,“heterosexual”wasaqualitythatencompassednotjustbehaviorsbutperceptions, emotions, even something that could almostbe called asensibility or aesthetic. This made it possible, for the first time, tospeak of heterosexualfeeling, whether or not heterosexual behaviorwasinvolved.WhencombinedwiththeFreudiannotionofthelibido,“heterosexual”becamepartandparcelofapoliticsofhealthyversusunhealthypleasures.

In Freudian thought, the libido is more than just the sexualimpulse.Itistheformless,insistent,anduniversalpartofthepsychethat desires.The libido itself doesnothave anyproductive intent; itjust wants what it wants andwhat it wants is its own satisfaction.Freud’slibido,withitsgoalofsubjectivesatisfactionregardlessofthesource,stoodinstarkcontrasttoKrafft-Ebing’ssexinstinct,sofirmlyanchoredinthereproductiveurge.

This presented a vexing problem:why should choosing a sexualobject for the libido seem, in theory, like something that shouldinvolvesomuchfreedom,yetinpracticeinvolvesolittle?Theprocessof learning to channel the libido toward proper and healthy sexualobjects, Freud claimed, was not just a central part of human

165

socializationbutsomethingthatrevealedagreatdealaboutaperson’spsyche and mental health, for it was the central drama of thedevelopmentofpersonhood.

Toexplainit,Freudinventedanelaboratetheoryofpsychosexualdevelopment, first articulated inThree Essays on the Theory ofSexuality, in 1905.Adult sexual preferences, Freud asserted, werewhatresultedafterthechild’sunformedandmalleablelibidowasputthrough a forge of primal psychological drama. Formales thiswasrelativelystraightforward,aggressive,anduncomplicated.Duringthe“phallic”or“genital”phase,aphaselastingfromapproximatelyagesthreetofive,thechildwouldexperiencethedesiretohavethemotherasamate.Forboychildren,Freudclaimed,thisincludedthedesiretokillhis rival, the father, resulting incastrationanxietyandemotionalambivalence toward other men. This was themoment at which themalesexualnaturecoalesced.

Things were different for girls. Girls began like boys, madly inlovewiththeirmothers.Butthisdesiretopossessthemother,Freudclaimed,would inevitablymeetwith frustration as the child realizedthatshedidnotpossessthepenisnecessarytotakeherfather’splace.Freudexplainedthatatthispoint,thefemalechildwouldbackdownfrom wanting the mother and instead learn to want tobe her. Inemulating hermother, a girlwould develop an appropriate feminineidentification.Aspartofthis,onasubtle,subconsciouslevel,thegirlwouldloseherinterestinherclitoris,thegenitalpartwithwhichsheassociatedherdesiresduringthatearlygenitalphase.Bythetimeshefinished puberty, she would have somehow, in a semi-mysticalprocessoftransference,switchedhereroticfocusfromherclitoristoher vagina, the better to take themother andwife positionwith herowneventualhusband.

Freud never adequately explained why this should happen inexactlythisway,buthewassureitdid.Onthisbasis,heclaimedthatwomenwhocontinued toderivesexualpleasure from theclitorisasadultswereimmature,theirsexualdevelopmenthaltedsomewhereinearlychildhood.Theywerealsoneurotic,possiblyhysterical,likelytobe hostile toward men, overly masculine, and aggressive. Stuck as

166

theywereatthestageofthelittlemother-desiringgirl,theymightwellbesexuallyattractedtootherwomen.

Forawomantoderivepleasurefromthevagina,ontheotherhand,wasmature,appropriate,andfullyheterosexual.Freudbynomeansinvented the idea thatwomen’s sexual desires and pleasures shouldfocusonbeingpenetratedvaginallywithapenis.Buthedidinventaradical—and, to many, convincing—new explanation of why thisshould be so. These ideas seemed a tailor-made rallying point forsocial conservatives appalled at the seeming gender anarchy offeminists, suffragists, New Women, and flappers. By the 1930s,thanks to Freud’s students and followers who carried on his workboth beforeand after Freud’s death in 1939, the idea that “vaginalorgasm” was the only valid heterosexual orgasm for women hadgatheredanextraordinaryamountofsteam.

Someproponentsofthevaginalorgasm,likeHeleneDeutsch,oneofFreud’sfavoritestudents,wereoptimistswhotookwhatcouldbecalled a “pro-vagina” stance. In herPsychology ofWomen (1944),Deutschtheorizedthathealthywomen’ssexdrivewasliterallyrootedin the vagina. In fineVictorian style, the “silent” vaginawas to beawokenbyaskilled,patientpenis.DeutschcomparedtheprocesstotheawakeningofSleepingBeauty, echoingHavelockEllis’s similarstatements,afewdecadesprior,aboutmaleresponsibilitytoawakenfemale sexuality, including his assertion that a girl “must be kissedinto awoman.”Awomanmight experience a first penetration as aviolent invasion, Deutsch allowed, but the pleasure she wouldexperiencefromhavinghervaginapenetratedwouldtransformthoseperceptions.Intercoursewouldbecomeamysticalmergerofsensual,reproductive,andgender-rolefulfillment.Deutschclaimedthatduringintercourseawomanwouldexperienceherselfasahelplesschild,inrelation to her adult and in-control partner, and simultaneouslyimagineherselfasthechildthatshefantasizedaboutconceivingasaresult of the intercourse. The vagina, therefore, was not just areproductiveorgan; itwasalso, if youwill, theorganbywhich thetrueheterosexualwomangavebirthtoherself.

OtherFreudiansdidn’t love thevagina somuch as theydetested

167

theclitoris.EduardHitschmannandEdmundBerglerclaimedthattheclitoris was destructive, masculinizing, even subversive. Women’sfailuretotransfereroticfocusfromtheclitoristothevaginawaswhatmadewomen refuse their role as “normal”wives andmothers, theyargued. It could turn them into feminists.Most of all, itmade them“frigid.”

For Hitschmann and Bergler, “frigidity” had a single criterion:“absence of the vaginal orgasm.”The standardwas unqualified andabsolute.A woman who did not enjoy intercourse: frigid. Womenwho derived sexual pleasure from acts other than intercourse werefrigid too. Nothing else mattered, only whether a woman had anorgasm because a man’s penis was inside her vagina. Sexuallyaggressive women were labeled “frigid” because of the associationbetween masculinityand aggressiveness.Womanhood that was notpassive was not properly womanly. “Frigidity,” as Jane Gerhardtpoints out, “thus became a label and a diagnosis that defined howmuchsexualdesireawomanmusthaveandinwhatkindsofsexualbehaviorshemustengagetobe‘healthy.’”[20]

“Healthy” and “normal” female heterosexual performance andpleasure began to seem so exacting that it was a wonder anyonequalified. Freudian-leaning sex educators, like the best-sellingMaryniaFarnhamandFerdinandLundberg,intheirModernWoman:TheLost Sex (1947),wanted readers to believe that “well-adjusted”womenwereanendangeredspecies.FarnhamandLundbergcorrectlycalculated that, in aUnited States thatwas desperately trying to getback to business as usual following the upheavals of global war,many men and women would find the authoritatively “sciency”-soundingprescriptionsofFreudiansexreassuringlyconservativeandstrict. Their book, and others like it, taught the mainstream thatwomen’ssexualpleasurehadonlyonepropersource,thevagina,andthatwomenwould only be able to take pleasure from the vagina ifthey had correctly “adjusted” to their proper, heterosexual genderroles.Asforwomenwhocouldnotmanagetohavevaginalorgasms?Perhaps they could find a way to overcome their neuroses, givenenoughtimeontheFreudiancouch.

168

COINOFTHEREALMThere is noofficial international unit formeasuring sexuality, but ifthere were, it would be the orgasm. This isAlfred Kinsey’s fault.Unlikehispredecessorsinthefieldofsexology,Kinseychosetobasehis research, as much as possible, on measurable, distinct physicalexperiencesandbiologicalphenomena.Themostprominentofthese,used for counting and classifying sex acts,wasorgasm.Part of theshockthatSexualBehaviorintheHumanMaleproducedwhenitwaspublished in1948wasdue toKinsey’sconclusiveevidence that farmoremenwereexperiencingorgasmsfarmoreoften,andasaresultof far more kinds of sexual activity, than polite society willinglyimagined, and each orgasm represented a fait accompli.Andwhen,forexample, it turnedout thatonlyabouthalf theorgasmsKinsey’sseveral thousand male respondents reported had occurred in thecourseofvaginalintercoursewiththeirrespectivewives,itwasnotawelcomerevelation.

Orgasm-counting delivered another wallop to traditionalexpectationsabout sexwhenSexualBehavior in theHumanFemalewasreleased,in1953.Whiletheubiquityofmasturbationandthe37percentofmenwhohadexperiencedsexwithothermenhadbeentheshocking revelationsof themaleKinsey report, themindblowersofthefemaleversionwerewomen’spre-andextramaritalsexualactivityand the diversity of their orgasmic experience. Nearly half ofKinsey’s women subjects had engaged in intercourse before theymarried, a figure thatAmerican society pretended to find appallingdespitethefactthatitwasobviouslycommonplaceandtookplace,forthemostpart,asKinseydemonstrated,withfiancéswhomthewomenwenton tomarry.Worse stillwas theapproximatelyone-quarterofmarriedwomen(26percentinKinsey’sfigures)whohadengagedinextramarital sex.[21] Furthermore, Kinsey’s women, including theadulterousones,tendedtoenjoysex.Hissampleranthefullgamutofhistoriesofsexualresponse,fromthe10percentofwomenwhohadbeen married at least fifteen years but had never experienced anorgasmandthe14percentwhowerefrequentlymultiplyorgasmic,tothe approximately 50 percent of the women who reported having

169

orgasmsalmosteverytimetheyhadsex.Kinsey’s orgasm-counting made him a sex-doxa whistleblower.

Thedifferencebetweenwhatpeoplebelievedtheaveragesexlifewaslikeandwhatitseemedtogenuinelybewasstaggering.ButthewayKinseymeasuredthedifferencewasjustasinfluentialashisresearch.By using orgasms as the beads on his sexological abacus, Kinseyeffectively declared that reproduction no longer counted as thebaselineofsexbetweenmenandwomen,pleasuredid.Thishadbeenincreasinglytrueforatleasthalfacenturyinpractice.AfterKinsey,itwasalsotrueinsexologicalandbiomedicaltheory.

Kinsey’sorgasm-countingalsoturnedthefocusofsextheorizingand research firmly away from moralizing. Statistics anddemographics, both nineteenth-century inventions, had beenmakingtheirinfluencefeltinsexologicalcirclesforsometime.Infactsurvey-based sex research had been going on longer than anyone reallysuspected, aswas later proven in 1974,whenhistorianCarlDegleruncovered thesurveys Dr. Clelia Mosher had conducted of herwomenpatients’sexlivesbeginninginthe1890s.[22]Butbyrelyingon physical events for his metrics, Kinsey added a bench-scienceattitude to themix, theattitude thatonecouldobservehumansexualbehavior and response with the same value-neutral detachment thatwouldbeusedindocumentingthevitalstatisticsof,say,gallwasps.Wasps, indeed, represented Kinsey’s major contribution to scienceprior to his sexological work. Of the 18 million insects in thecollection of theAmerican Museum of Natural History, around 5millionarethemindbogglingandpainstakingcollectionofgallwaspsandgallsassembledbyAlfredKinsey.

This bioscientific approach permitted, even encouraged, a newfocus on mechanical processes and physiological events, centeringaroundthemostdramaticandeasilyobserved:orgasm.Chapter15ofKinsey’sSexual Behavior in the Human Female, “Physiology ofSexualResponseandOrgasm,”becameaninstanttouchstone,fornoonehadpreviouslyapproached thesubject insuchamethodicalandcomprehensive fashion. Shortly thereafter, when William Mastersbeganhisresearchonsexin1954,heimmediatelyconcentratedonthe

170

mechanics,techniques,andphenomenaofsexualarousalandclimax.By the timeMasters, by thenworking in partnershipwithVirginiaJohnson (whom he would later marry), publishedHuman SexualResponse in 1966, the research teamhadobserved382women and312meninwhattheyestimatedhadbeenapproximatelytenthousand“complete cycles of sexual response” that included both penis-in-vagina intercourse and, radically, masturbation. Technology was amajor factor in theirwork, includingminiaturized camerasmountedinsideplasticphallusesthatletthemdocument,forinstance,whattookplace inside the vagina during orgasm. Masters and Johnson’sresearch led toacompleteoverhaulof thebiomedicalunderstandingof what happened physiologically during sex, and to a ground-upreevaluationoffemaleorgasminparticular.

Kinsey had asserted—although it was well buried nearly 600pagesintoan800-plus-pagebook—thatthevaginawas“ofminimumimportanceincontributingtotheeroticresponsesofthefemale,”andactuallyprobablycontributedmoretomen’ssexualexperiencethantowomen’s.MastersandJohnson’sworkconfirmedthatthiswastrue,andfurtherrevealedthattheso-calledvaginalorgasmwasactuallynotvaginal.Whenithappenedatall,itwastheresultoffrictionbetweenclitoral hood and clitoris that some women experienced when thethrusts of thepenis tugged at connected flesh.This, they explained,createdthemistakenimpressionofanorgasmthatwasdependentonpenetration. Masters and Johnson’s work on masturbation furtherdisproved the vaginal orgasm theory. Proper psychosexualadjustment, itappeared,had little todowithanythingwhereorgasmwasconcerned.Propersexualtechniqueandadequateattentiontotheclitoris,ontheotherhand,did.WhatKinseyhadproposed,MastersandJohnsondisposed.

These discoveries, arriving when and as they did, providedbountiful fuel for the social, political, and philosophical fires of theSexualRevolution.Prioritizingpleasureoverreproductionwasafinecomplement to critiques of capitalism and industrialism.Acknowledgingthatpleasuregaveutility tonon-intercoursesexactswas a powerful critique of conformity. Putting orgasm first, and

171

makingpleasuretheaspectofsexthatcountedmost,madeiteasiertobash“hang-ups” likemonogamy, the idea that sexbelongedonly inmarriage,andtheideathatsexwasonlylegitimatewhenaccompaniedbylove.Abodythatwasfreetoexperienceorgasmatwill,itseemedtomany,was a body that could be liberated from the shackles of arepressive society thatwanted to controlwhat people didwith theirloyalties,theirenergies,andtheirreproductiveorgans.

Iforgasmwas the thing thatmadesex legitimate,not thekindofactivity that produced the orgasm, all kinds of possibilities forlegitimatesexopenedup.Oralsexinparticularhadbeenrareamongmale/femalecouplesintheKinseyreports,butbecamecommonplacefor theyoungergeneration(thoseunder thirty)duringthe1970s.Atthesametime,thePilltransformedeventraditionalpenetrativevaginalsexitselfintosomethingthatcouldbeconsideredfromthestandpointof pleasure first, and only secondarily as a potentially reproductiveact. As John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman write inIntimateMatters, their landmarkhistoryof sexual life inAmerica,“Even thesupposedly immutable ‘sex act’ underwent redefinition inways thatweakenedamalemonopolyoverthenatureofsex.”[23]

Orgasmwasparticularlysignificanttothecausesofgayliberationand feminism. The rise in recreational sex and contraceptive useamongstraight-identifiedcouplesmadeitmoredifficulttopillorythe“unproductive” sex of same-sex partners. Same-sex sexual activityalso gained some legitimacy, as it became clear that different-sexcouples were regularly participating in many of the same actualactivities as same-sex partners. Oral sex, in particular, had becomeextremely popular among different-sex couples,many of whom, asstudies like Kinsey’s clearly showed, were also no strangers to atleastoccasionalanalintercourse.

To women, the orgasm-centered revelations of Kinsey and ofMastersandJohnsonwereevenmoreimportantandsymbolic.Firstand foremost, they let feminists gleefully kick the whole notion of“vaginalorgasm”tothecurb.Womeneverywherebreathedasighofrelief as they began to set down the Freudian baggage of“appropriate” psychosexual gender-role identification. Many were

172

also thrilled at theprospect of legitimate female sexual pleasure thatwas not beholden to penetration or the penis. The pleasures of theclitoris became a rallying point for feminists and lesbian-feminists,who rapidly began to produce a number of stunning critiques of“vaginalorgasm,”penetrativesexual intercourse,andheterosexualityasawhole.AnneKoedt’sessay“TheMythoftheVaginalOrgasm”andTi-GraceAtkinson’s“TheInstitutionofSexualIntercourse”and“VaginalOrgasmasaMassHystericalSurvivalResponse”wereallpublished in 1968, dramatically radicalizing a feminist discussionaboutsexthatwasalreadyinalivelystateofferment.

Women’sorgasmsrapidlybecametokensofliberation,proofthatonehadsucceededinthrowingoff,androotingout,thepsychologicalfetters of repressive, conformist “Victorian” and “Puritan” views ofsexuality.Butnosoonerdidthependulumbegintoswingthansomewomen began to feel that the pressure to have orgasms wasoppressiveinitsownway.FeministDanaDensmorewrote,in1971,“Our ‘right’ to enjoy our own bodies has not only been bestoweduponus,itisalmostaduty...andpeopleseemtobelievethatsexualfreedom(evenwhenitisonlythefreedomtoactivelyofferone’sselfas a willing object) is freedom.”[24] Some lesbian feminists, inparticular,retreatedfromthepursuitoforgasm-focusedsex,findingittoomuchan instrumentofpatriarchal,performance-orientedcontrol.Theyendorsedafeministsexualitythatwaswhole-bodiedratherthangenitally focused, centeredon emotions and intimacy rather thanbodily sensation. Others continued to explore feminist models forovertlygenital,orgasm-orientedsexpredicatedonphysicalpleasure.[25]

Inthemainstreamculture,too,womenandmenstruggledtomakesenseofwhat itmeant tohaveorgasmbeasexualraisond’être.Aspowerfulandnewastheorgasmstandardwas,itbynomeansmadeacleansweepofsexualculture.Women,andmenaswell,hadtofigureouthoworindeedwhetherthepursuitofsexualpleasureforitsownsake fit in with their desires for love, romance, marriage, children,economic stability, and career goals. Books, magazine articles, andother media touted the giving and getting of sexual pleasure as a

173

source of personal fulfillment, the ultimate in sophistication, andmanifestproofof sexualdesirability.But relatively fewpeoplegaveupthesearchfor love—atleast inthelongterm—infavorofpurelysexual liaisons. Clumsily, sometimes catastrophically, but alsohopefully,men andwomen tried their best to incorporate the ethosthat“goodrelationshipsarebasedingoodsex”andthecultivationofequal-opportunity orgasm into the already demanding culture ofdifferent-sex relationships.Tobeheterosexualnowmeant topursuerelationships that encompassed, at minimum, egalitarian sexualpleasure, enthusiastic sexual desire and activity, romantic love,emotional intimacy, and companionship. In most cases,heterosexuality also encompassed economic collaboration,monogamy, kinship, shared domesticity, and parenting. It was, andstillis,alottoask.

Makingorgasmthegoalofsexdidnot,infact,usherinamagicaleraofliberation,equality,andgeneralgrooviness.Womencontinuetohavetonegotiateasexualdoublestandardthat,eveninHollywood’sfantasy factory, paints their sexual pleasure as less appropriate andless valid thanmen’s. The film-ratings body known as theMotionPictureAssociationofAmericahasbeennotedtoapplyitsharshest,mostcommerciallydamaging,ratingstofilmsfeaturingwhatitdeemsto be “overlong” scenes of female orgasm.[26] Women who areperceived to be overly sexual, or too sexual in the wrong ways—meaning,especially,waysthatdonotfocusonconventionalfemininereceptivity to men—are still likely to be shamed, ostracized, andpunished.[27]

Men, in their turn, have had to learn to contend with sexuallyassertive, even aggressive, women. While one might assume thiswouldbeadreamcometrueformen,formanyithasproventobeasourceofanxietyandfear.Womenwiththesexualexperiencetoformcritical opinions about men’s sexual performance may be seen asterrifying taskmistresses whose exacting standards, as historianAngusMcLarennotes,menoftenperceiveasemasculating.Women’suse of vibrators, dildos, and other tools for self-pleasuring alsogeneratefearsthatthepenis—andpresumablythemanhimself—will

174

notbeabletomeasureupandthatmenwillfindthemselvesobsolete.Women’srelativefreedomtohaveorgasmsontheirown,withone

another,andondemand is surelyan improvementoverhaving theirsexual pleasure be always and forever yoked to themovement of ahusband’s penis. But an expanded ethos of heterosexual pleasureoptionsdoesnotsweepawayoldermandates;it justaddstothelist.Penetrativepenis-in-vaginasexcontinues todefine“sex”in theeyesof many; there is evidence that many teenagers, schooled inantipregnancy and abstinence-only rhetoric, happily engage inmanyothersexactsontheblitheassumptionthattheyare“notreally”sex.[28]Ejaculationalsocontinuestoholdacertainprideofplace.EvenintheageofHIV/AIDS—perhaps,paradoxically,partlybecauseofit—the external ejaculation “money shot” is the standard depiction ofmalepleasureinpornography.Therecentpopularityofbukkakeporn,inwhichawoman isdepictedas reveling inbeingejaculatedonbymultiplemen simultaneously, also seems to tap into some very oldfantasies about the source of women’s “real” and “proper” sexualpleasure.

Women continue to be bombarded with exhortations to be, orbecome,moreoptimally responsive topenetrativevaginalsex.Foraprice,plasticsurgeonswillremodelawoman’svulvaandvaginainaprocessitspractitionerscall“vaginalrejuvenation,”withtheobjectofrearrangingtissuesnotonlytotightenthevaginaforthesakeofmalepleasure, but so that the thrusts of a penis create more collateralfriction between clitoris and clitoral hood, and therefore in theorymorefemaleorgasms.OneLosAngelesspecialisthaseveninventedadubious procedure called “G-spotAmplification,” injecting collagenintothevaginalwallstructureknownastheGrafenburgorG-spotonthe theory that a bigger G-spot means greater arousal duringpenetration.[29]Formen,Viagraanditsrelativesreinforcethehoaryold shibboleth that all you need for successful sex—the kind thatmakes youburst into songwithyourbuddies andmakesyourwifeswoon—isarock-hardpenistopenetrateyourpartnerwith.Mastersand Johnson may have killed the Freudian myth of the vaginalorgasm,butitseemsnoonehasyetmanagedtodriveastakethrough

175

itsheart.Themorethingschange, itseems, themorethingsstaythesame.

AsIwritethesewords,theGermanpharmaceuticalgiantBoehringerIngelheim is doing advanced testing of a drug with the uncomelyname of Flibanserin, which it claims can help to alleviate thesymptoms of a “disorder” of female sexuality called HypoactiveSexual Desire Disorder (HSDD). Though the company’s testingfocuses onwhat it calls “SatisfyingSexualEvents” (orSSE, in theacronymphomaniacparlanceofBigPharma),thebasicdynamicisthesameastheonethatputcountlessAtomicAgewivesontheanalyst’scouch.Womenmust be heterosexual in the rightways, in the rightamounts, and they must experience the right degree and type ofpleasure, or there is something the matter with them that demandsprofessionaltreatment.Thisso-called“femaleViagra,”will,intheory,alter brain chemistry to make sure that women want what they’resupposed towant, that they enjoywhat they’re supposed to enjoy,that theyarebetteradjusted to the sexualdemandsof theirmenandtheirculture.[30]ButaswithViagra itself,whatdoes itmeanwhensexual—andspecificallyheterosexual—pleasurecomescourtesyofapill?

One thing it means is that we have not yet resolved the uneasyrelationshipbetweensocietyandlibidothatFreudidentifiedahundredyears ago. As Freud insightfully noted, the libido is a strangeattractor,chaoticandamorphous,and its free reignwas,andstill is,antithetical totheexistenceofWesternsocietyasweknowit.Freudclaimed that sexual repression was what channeled the unrulyenergiesoflibidointousefulpaths,makingittheenginethatliterallydrove—andpeopled,andbuilt,andpainted,andwrote,andfarmed—the civilized world. But since approximately the time of Freud, thelibido has made increasing claims to independence, not least, asJonathanNedKatzpointsout,throughtheverywordandconceptof“heterosexual” and its ability to give medical and intellectuallegitimacy to middle-class desire.[31] The proof of concept of thisnew legitimization of a libido-driven pleasure ethic for male/femalesexwasarguablytheSexualRevolution.Itssuccessisattestedtonot

176

justinthemyriadbooksdevotedtohavingmoreandbetterandlongerandeasierorgasms,butinthemostmainstreamofpopculture,fromthefamousKatz’sDelifake-orgasmsceneinWhenHarryMetSallyto thecoverson theheadlinesofagood two-thirdsof thewomen’smagazinesontheracksatanyNorthAmericansupermarket.

Butoldhabits,andolddoxa,endure. It isnotsurprising thatourpresent landscape of heterosexual pleasure is a mixed bag oflibidinous experiment and anxious rules-lawyering: the borderbetweenfreedomandcontrolisanuneasy,highlypoliticalplace.Wewantwomentobesecureenoughinthepursuitoftheirownpleasureto pick out the vibrators of their choice in friendly, feminist-ownedsex shops, butwe don’twant them to prefer vibrators tomen.Wewantmen to be virile, experienced, and highly sexually skilled, butnot toprioritize sexover loveor to refusemarriageand fatherhood.We are anxious to experience sexual pleasure and plenty of it, butonly if it happens to the right people, at the right ages, in the rightcombinations.What it seemswe really want is a heterosexuality inwhichwecanenjoyallthethrillsofridingthetigerofthelibidowhilesimultaneouslybeingkeptsafefromitsteethandclaws.Itisagoalasidealisticasthecreationofarighttothepursuitofhappiness.Itmay,infact,beanoutgrowthoftheverythesamething.

177

CHAPTERSEVEN

HereThereBeDragons

Thescene:Anotherdoctor’soffice,andamanwitha framedJohnsHopkins diploma hanging on thewall behind him is looking atmewithanexpressionofirritableconfusion.It’snotmystraightforwardandminorhealthproblemthathashimbothered;it’sthefactthatI’vejustcorrectedhispronounuse.

“‘He,’not‘she,’”Isay.“Mypartnerismale-identified.”Hethrustsapen into thepocketofhiswhite labcoatandshakes

hishead.“Thenwhydoyouusetheword‘partner’?Everyoneknowsthat ‘partner’means ‘same-sexpartner.’Youshould say ‘husband,’or‘boyfriend.’Justsaying‘partner’likethatismisleading.”

Lateron in theelevator,prescription inhand, I thinkbackon theinteraction. I’ve run into thisassumptionmany times, thatmyusing“partner” is code for “lesbian.” But there’s something about thedoctor’suseoftheword“misleading”thatgrates.Hadhesaidthatmyreferring tomy “partner”was confusing or unclear, I don’t think itwouldhavebotheredme.Buthisuseof theword “misleading” feltlike an accusation. Rattled by being told that his assumptionswereincorrect,heturnedthetablesbyimplyingthatIwaslying,orattheveryleastbreakingsomeunwrittenrule.

And in away, hewas right. I had broken the rules, but not byusing the word “partner” to describe the person who has been, inAuden’s words, “my North, my South, my East and West/MyworkingweekandmySunday rest” fornearly adecade and ahalf.Where I broke the ruleswas by correcting the doctor’s assumptionthat I was referring to another woman, thus revealing somethinggenuinely disturbing by the lights of our sexuality doxa: we can’talways accurately guess another person’s sexual orientation. My

178

doctorhad,Ifinallyrealized,beenmisled.Butnotbyme.Hewasthedupe of doxa, betrayed by what he believed was true about thelanguageofsexualorientation.

The simple fact is that no sexuality is as simple as my doctorwantedtomakeit.Neitheristhelanguageweusetotalkaboutit.AsKarlUlrichsandKarl-MariaKertbenywerewellaware,sexualityisacomplicatedalchemy thatmixesbiology,gender relations,hierarchy,resources, and power. “Heterosexual” and “homosexual” were, ononelevel,nothingmorethanasmartman’sattempttouselanguagetoredefinethetermsofaparticularlynastygameofUsvs.Them.

Despite it, the Us vs. Them prevailed. But black-and-whiteapproacheshaveahardtimestayingpristineinaworldthatfeaturesnot just theproverbial thousandshadesofgrey,but thefullPantonerangeoflivingandluminouscolor.Inthepastcenturyorso,sincethenotionofthe“heterosexual”emergedintothemainstreamofWesternculture and became an entrenched part of doxa, there has been aconstant struggle to maintain this sense of black-or-whiteness, thisconvenient fiction that human beings, by their very sexual natures,dividethemselvesneatlyintotwoclearanddistinctsexualcamps.

It is a tricky and profound struggle. The ideology of the“heterosexual”isrootedinafairlyvenerablevisionofhumansocietyand the human animal.As we have seen throughout these pages,heterosexualityasaconceptwasborntoserveaparticularcultureataparticular time. In the milieu into which “heterosexual” emerged,Christianity still formallycontrolledmuchof the social rule-making;gender roles were considered distinct and immutable; gender itselfwas seen as being an inextricable component of biological sex; andthe idea thatmen andmalepriorities should run theworldwas justbeginningtobemeaningfullychallenged.“Heterosexual”wascoinedfor a world in which the ideal of economically and socially viableadulthood meant marriage, children, and middle-class domesticrespectability. It was a society that was fairly comfortable withhierarchy, where political and social egalitarianism had becomeaspirationalidealsbutwerebynomeanseverydaypractices.

“Heterosexual”alsocameintobeingatthesamemomentwhenthe

179

underpinnings of that culturewere beginning to crack under stress.Protestantism, industrialization, urbanization, abolition, colonialism,capitalism, and the rise of science as a source ofwide authority allplayed a part, as did the pressures of egalitarian and human rightsphilosophies. The notion of individual human happiness began tobecome a recognized cultural currency, with far-reaching,fundamentallyrevolutionaryconsequences.

Butmassive,cultural-bedrockpowerstructuresdonotsimplyrollover when they encounter friction. Nor do they humbly andproactively offer to give up control if it would better serve currentrealities. Rather, they continue to assert their power as long aspossible, using a wide variety of tools that very much includesassimilation. Like the fictional Borg ofStar Trek: The NextGeneration, which assimilated the individuals and species itencountered into its own vast collective, hive-mind entity,heterosexuality often attempts to copewith disruptive influences by“adding their distinctiveness to our own.” The more numerous thepractices and customs encompassed by the normative authority of“heterosexual,” the broader the regulatory reach of heterosexualitydoxa. But assimilation has its limits. As sociologist and feministtheoristSteviJacksonhasputit,themaintenanceofaparticulardoxaor schemeof sexuality is“not just aquestionof themaintenanceofthe heterosexual/homosexual binary, but of themultitude of desiresandpracticesthatexistonbothsidesofthatdivide.”[1]

Inhistoricalhindsight,wehavebeenabletowatch“heterosexual”expand to include, however haltingly, things like contraception,divorce, women’s economic autonomy, and the prioritization oforgasm over reproduction. But no entity can engulf and digesteverythingthatisthrownatitwithouteventuallybecomingsomethingelse entirely. Categories are meaningful because they are bounded.When those boundaries become too thinly stretched—or too easilypermeable, or both—the categories themselves start to lose theirmeaning.

This may already be starting to happen to the category ofheterosexuality. The landscape of sex and gender, so central to the

180

hetero/homo scheme, has become increasingly complex andsophisticated, thanksboth toadvances inbiomedical technologyandto a growing, and increasingly visible, transgender and transsexualculture. Options for acquiring wealth, parenting children, and forforming (and indeeddissolving and reforming) families have allundergone dramatic change that enables many options beyond thehistoricalheterosexualnuclear-familynorm.Byputtingapremiumonpsychological and physical satisfaction, we have made space tocalculate the worth of sexual practices in totally nonreproductiveterms:penis-in-vaginaintercoursebecomesonlyasworthwhileasitispleasurable.Andwhen female orgasm ismade amajor part of thatcalculus,penis-in-vagina intercourseoftendoesnot comparewell toalternatives.Addtothisthedevelopmentofarobustqueercultureandrelatedchanges inourdoxaofhowsexuality and sexualorientationwork, and “heterosexual” becomes less and less inevitable, morevulnerable.

If the sheer weight of culture and history continues to give“heterosexual”thefeelofamonolith,it issurelyamonoliththathasbeensuffering theeffectsof someveryheavyweather. Ifweare tomake any guesses aboutwhat the future of heterosexuality holds—andcertainlyifIamgoingtoanswerthequestionofhowImightbestcharacterizemyownromanticanddomesticpartnership—wehavetoconsidertheimpactofallthesethingsonthenatureandthefutureof“heterosexual.”

THEWIDESTANCEWhenhewasarrested for lewdconduct inamen’sbathroomin theMinneapolis airport in June 2007, then-senator Larry Craig, aRepublican fromIdaho, reportedlydefendedhimselfagainstchargesthathehadtouchedthefootofanundercoverofficerinaneighboringbathroom stallwith his own by saying that he had a “wide stance”whengoingtothebathroom.AsCraig,ahard-linesocialconservativewith a reputation for voting against LGBT rights issues, triedineffectually to defend himself against charges that he was secretlygay,the“widestance”phraserapidlybecameacatchphrasetouseto

181

refertoaclosetedqueer.Thephraseismorethanapt.Craigisonlyoneofasizeablenumber

ofsociallyconservativeright-wingAmericanpoliticiansandreligiousfigures tohavebeencaughtup insame-sexsexual scandal in recentyears.[2]Likealmostallof theothers—California state senatorRoyAshburn being a notable exception—Craig vociferously maintainednotonlythathewasinnocentof thecrimeofwhichhewasaccused(hepledguilty,thentriedtoretracttheplea),butthathewasinnocentofthelarger“crime”ofbeinggay.

Inasense,hewascorrect.WhateverLarryCraigdidorintendedtodointhatMinnesotabathroom,whetherornotanyoftheseveralmenwhocameforthtoassertthattheyhadhadsexwithCraigweretellingthetruth,andwhateversame-sexdesiresmightormightnothaveeverlurkedintheformersenator’sthoughtsreallydon’tmatter.Insofarasour modern doxa of sexual orientation involves, according to theAmerican PsychologicalAssociation, “a person’s sense of identitybased on [emotional/romantic/sexual] attractions, related behaviors,and membership in a community of others who share thoseattractions,”LarryCraigwasincontrovertiblynotgay.[3]WhatCraigwas,metaphoricallyspeakingifnot literally,wasamanwithawidestance. Like many other men have done throughout history, hestraddledtheborderofwhatwaspermissibleforamaninapositionof power, with every expectation that his power, position, andprivilegewouldinsulatehimfromcriticism.

Afewdecadesago, itprobablywould’vebeenaprettygoodbet.When a man’s allegiance to the patriarchal status quo is clear andseemingly genuine—husband and father credentials are particularlyrelevant—thereisatendencytolooktheotherwayif,uponoccasion,he indulges in a same-sex liaison. Pledging allegiance to patriarchalstandards can take many forms, including that of the role the mantakesvis-à-vishismalepartners.FromancientRome topresent-dayLatinAmerica,menwhotaketheinsertiveroleinsexwithothermenaremorelikelytobeperceivedasmasculineandsexuallyrespectable,“normal”menwho aremerelymaking an exception in terms of thetype of body on which they are doing sex. Men who take the

182

receptive role with other men, on the other hand, are vilified forbendingover,forgivinguppower,forbeingeffeminatefaggots.Itisacrudeshorthand,butdemonstrative.

Suchdemonstrationsofallegianceneednotbesodirect, letalonegenital.Formanydecades,untilhisdeathfromAIDSforcedtheissueoutintotheopen,actorRockHudsonsuccessfullyconcealedhisgayidentity from the general public.Hudson’s leading-man film career,and particularly his roles in the three sunnily heteronormativeromanticcomediesinwhichhewaspairedwiththewholesomeDorisDay, lent credence to a heterosexuality in which the public clearlywanted to believe.Similarly outedbyhis eventualAIDSdeathwaslegendaryconservativelawyerRoyCohn,bestknownforhisrolesinprosecutingthecaseagainstJuliusandEthelRosenbergandaschiefcounseltoJosephMcCarthyduringtheArmy-McCarthyhearingsof1954.Duringhislife,Cohnwassexuallyactivewithothermen,butheeffectivelysilencedanyattemptedrevelationsofhishomosexualitythroughstaunchconservatismandapatternofgoingafter,inhisroleas McCarthy’s attack dog, “communist sympathizers” who wereactuallyoftenlesscommunistthantheyweresimplyhomosexual.[4]

Suchprivilegedimmunity,however,hasitslimits.NeitherHudsonnorCohnwouldbelikelytopullofftheirdoublelivesquitesoeasilytoday.ThegrowthofadistinctivelyLGBTculture—thatis,aculturecreated and primarily participated in by peoplewho self-identify assome variety of non-heterosexual, and a corresponding successfulcreationwithinmainstreamcultureofadoxaofgayness—hasmadeitmoredifficult than it used tobe to enjoy the advantagesof a “widestance.”

Inthepastfiftyyearsorso,Westernersasaculturehavecometobelievethatthequalityof“beinggay”existsnaturallyinasignificantproportionofthepopulation.Wemaybedividedaboutthecause,orwhether there evenhas to beone, but contemporaryWesterners arereasonably firm inourbelief thatheterosexualityandhomosexualityexist,andareneitherchosennorvoluntary.Peoplewhoaregay,mostWesternersnowbelieve,arenotbeingwillfullyperverse,noraretheydeviants.Theyareactingaccordingtotheirnaturesandare,forlackof

183

a better phrase, just being themselves. This rhetoric disguises thecomplicated ways that culture, doxa, experience, and relationshipsworktogethertoshapeourpersonalities,desires,andbeliefs.Butthisisnotneweither.Wehavealongtraditionofblaming(orcrediting)who we are to more or less numinous, arbitrary forces like God,Nature,orFreudianpsychodevelopmentalmechanics.The“justbeingyourself” mantra is no less confounding. It implies that thedevelopment of selfhood is an unmediated, and thus authoritative,closedloop.Itcreatesadoxaofsexualorientationthatassertsthatthe“authentic”sexualselfsimplyiswhatitis,organicandspontaneous,andwhetherexpressedorsuppressed,willalwaysbethesame.

Wealsohaveacquiredadoxaoftheclosetandofthephenomenonof “coming out,” further testament to the effectiveness of LGBTactivismandvisibility.Theclosethasbecomeacommonidiom,usedto describe any secret allegiance that seems somehow shameful orcontrary topublic image; currently, somemembersof theAmericanpoliticalFarRightseemtoadoreaccusingPresidentBarackObamaofbeinga“closetMuslim.”Thefactthat“closet”isnowshorthandforhidingmeansthatithasbecomedoxic.Itworksbecauseweallknowwhattheclosetis,weunderstandhowitworks,andweknowwhatitmeans: to be closeted is to deny one’s authentic self, an unhappyexperience that any sane personwouldwant to avoid.More to thepoint,webelievethatlifeintheclosetishypocritical.

Thus when someone who has self-identified publicly asheterosexual is revealed tohaveengaged insame-sexactivityon thequiet, the very fact that he attempted to conceal it is instantlymeaningful. The doxa of gayness and of the closet means that therevelationofasame-sexliaisonappearsastherevelationofatrueself.Anything less than an open admission of gayness, or at leastbisexuality,onthepartofthepersonatthecenterofsucharevelationisunderstoodimplicitlytobeaninstanceof“theladydothprotesttoomuch.”

The degree to which this doxa of gayness has become part ofmainstreamculturecanbegaugedbythefact that it isnowtypicallythemainstreammedia,ratherthanspecificallyLGBTmedia,thatleads

184

the feeding frenzywhen a same-sex scandal erupts. “Outing,” oncethe controversial bailiwick of activist journalists from the queercommunity, has become mainstream. Queer journalists likeMichelangelo Signorile, who famously defended the practice as anexplicit activist strategy after posthumously outing multimillionairepublisherMalcolmForbesin1990,sawoutingasawayofforciblyholding the powerful and closeted accountable for their failures tosupport LGBT rights, which inmany cases bolstered their fortune,privilege,andimmunityfromhomophobiccriticism.Themainstreammedia learned from this model, and adapted it to the needs of thestatus quo.Mainstreammedia outing is done simultaneously as thepolicingofnormativeboundariesandtheexposureofhypocrisy.

The hypocrisy piece is critical. Our doxa of sexual orientationincludes an interesting and exacting mode of personal honor.IdentifyingorbeingidentifiedashomosexualisforthemostpartnolongeramortaldisgraceinmostoftheWest.ThenumberofcountriesandUSstateslegalizingsame-sexmarriagecontinuestogrow.EveninAmerica,whichhascome toseemsomewhatbackwards in termsofattitudestoLGBTpeoplebycomparisontosomeofitsfirst-worldneighbors, approximately 50 percent now find “gay and lesbianrelations”morally acceptable, according to a 2010Gallup report.[5]Whatisnowseenasmostshameful,withregardtohomosexuality,islyingaboutit.“Comingout”hascometoconnoteacertaindegreeofethicalrectitude,awillingnesstoplacehonestyaboveconvenience.Itis a quality many people appear to consider admirable. Whencelebritiescomeoutasgay,assingerRickyMartindidin2010,theyareapplaudednotjustbyfellowqueers,butbyasizeablechunkofthemainstreamthatvaluesthedisplayofauthenticity,accountability,andhonesty.Certainly theexcuse-makingandbackpedallingofmanyofthe powerful conservative men who find themselves outed by themedia—Craig’s “wide stance” or Florida politician Bob Allen’sincredible2007assertionthatheofferedanundercoverofficermoneyfor permission to perform fellatio on him because hewas afraid ofblack men—are viewed in the mainstream media as dishonorable,unmasculine,andridiculous.

185

Inthisway,themainstreamingofLGBTculturehassucceededinreducing the assimilativepowerof “heterosexual.”Thedevelopmentof gayness doxa, however, succeeds partly because it too paysallegiance toaphilosophy that sexuality isbasedon theconceit thatthehumanspeciesinherentlysortsitssexualityneatlyinto,asKinseygroused,“sheepandgoats.”Thisisagrossoversimplification,anditdoes us a disservice. As University of Utah psychologist LisaDiamond’sworkhasshown,itappearsthat,particularlyforwomen,same-sex relationships and desires can genuinely be episodic.Regardlessofgeneraltendenciestobeattractedtoonebiologicalsexor another, it is truly possible in some cases to love and desire aspecific person regardless of plumbing.[6] Because of the either/ornature of our sexual orientation scheme, though, these both/andexperiences,whicharerelativelycommon,areoftenerased,bothfrommainstreamacknowledgmentandfromthehistoricalrecord.

CertainlythedoxaofgaynessasitcurrentlyexistsintheWesternmainstreamisimperfect.Itseffectsarelimited,andtheunderstandingsit promotes are incomplete. But it is an amusing irony thatheterosexuality’s ability to take a wide stance with regard toassimilating same-sex liaisons has been undone, to the significantdegree ithas,by thevery institutionalizationofaclearsplitbetweenhomosexualandheterosexual.Inanera inwhichwearealsoseeingan interesting mainstream middle ground coalesce along theborderlinesofheterosexualandhomosexual—theturfof“bromance,”“bicurious,” and “heteroflexible”—we can see the openacknowledgement of conflicting desires. In one sense, such termsrepresentnothingmore than thesameoldbid toclaimtheemotionalanderoticopportunitiesinherentina“widestance”whileretainingtheoptionofshelteringunderthesturdyroofofstraightness.Inanotherway,overtlyclaimingamiddleground(albeitwithmorethanawhiffof entitlement to hetero privilege) is an exciting venture beyond thebinary.Fromthestandpointofwhatheterosexualhasbeen,andwillbe,bothbearwatching.

WHEREDOBABIESCOMEFROM?

186

Achildborntodaycould,asStephanieCoontzpointsout,fairlyeasilyhavefiveparents: twogeneticparentswhodonateeggandsperm,ahost mother who gestates and gives birth to the child, and twoadoptive parents who raise the child and do the practical work ofparenting.[7]Thisisadazzlingpossibility,soforeigntothewaysthathumans have acquired children for the vastmajority of our historythatmanypeoplewouldstillfinditdifficult,ifyou’llpardonthepun,to conceive.Artificial insemination of a humanwas documented asearlyas1790byanatomistJohnHunterandwaslikelypracticedevenearlier, but the removal of sexual activity from the begetting ofchildrenwasasubjectfitonlyforsciencefictionasrecentlyas1932,when Aldous Huxley depicted the Fertilization Rooms and babyfactories of hisBraveNewWorld. The first baby conceived via in-vitro laboratory fertilization (IVF), Louise Joy Brown, was bornforty-sixyearsafterBraveNewWorld, toworldwideamazementandcontroversy.

The Catholic Church has been particularly hostile to nonsexualmethods of conception, contending that they, like contraception,separate conception from “the marriage act” in a way that wascontrary to “laws written into the actual nature of man and ofwoman.”[8]This is notsurprising, since theChurch’s entiredogmaanddoctrineofsexualityhas,since its inception,beenpredicatedonthe assumption that the need for children is the only thing that canrightfullytrumpthesuperiorityoflifelongvirginityandcelibacy.Butartificial insemination, IVF, and related technologies also seem tothreatenmany peoplewho have no such doctrinal investment. Thisseems to be due in no small measure to the fact that reproductivetechnologyexponentiallymultipliesthechancesforpeoplewhocouldnotdoitotherwise,includingsame-sexcouplesandsingleparents,tohavechildren.

Angstoverreproductivetechnologyhasgonehandinhandwithitsmedicalizationandmainstreaming.Placingsemenintoavaginaisnotexactly a complicated task, and it does not have to be donewith apenis. For centuries, some people have quietly chosen a DIYapproachtoartificialinsemination.Thisverymuchincludesgaymen

187

and lesbians, for whom “turkey-baster babies” were a well-knownpath to parenthood well before the medical establishment wasprepared to offer LGBT people access to clinical reproductivetechnology. Many LGBT parents still choose to handle their ownartificialinseminations,surrogatepregnancies,andthelike,sometimesincorporating these reproductive arrangements into their extendedfamily structures. I have a nephewwhose extended family includeshis “spuncle,” the man who donated the sperm and is the child’sgeneticfather.

Whenclinical-gradefertilitytechnologybecameavailabletolesbianwould-bemothers,however,muchofthegeneralpublicreactedasifabrand new monstrosity had shown up overnight. When the UKNationalHealthServiceopenedin-vitrofertilizationservicestoLGBTprospective parents in 2006, nothing less than fatherhood itselfseemed at stake. “Fathers Not Needed,” wailed theDaily Mailheadline,inacriducoeurthatspokevolumes.

Outsourcing the begetting and gestation of children, it seems,triggers some remarkable insecurities. On the surface this seemsstrange,sincechildcarehastraditionallybeenhandedovertoothersasamatterofroutine,beginningvirtuallyatthemomentofbirthinthecases ofwet-nurses, foundling homes, and indeed infant adoptions.Butuntilveryrecentlyindeedformostpeople, thedesireforachildimpliedthenecessityofpenis-in-vaginaintercourse.Until,ofcourse,it didn’t. Overnight, it seemed that women could call allthereproductive shots: they could choose the sperm they wanted, getpregnant, bear their babies, and raise them, allwithouthaving to somuchasshakehandswithaman.Whatdidthismeanformen?Whatdidthismeanforheterosexuality?

Itisnotasifthereisnoprecedentforthefatherlessfamilyorthehusbandlesshousehold.Thesehavealwaysexisted.Therehasneverbeena timewhenmenhavenotabandonedwomen,whenhusbandshavenotdied,gonetowar,orbeenforcedtoleavewivesandchildrenbehindwhentheywenttoseaortosomedistantplacetofindwork.Commonas theyhavebeen,however,wehavehistoricallyregardedhusbandlesshouseholds as anomalies, prone toproducingproblems

188

likebossyandforwardgirls . . .orsubmissiveboyseffeminizedbythelackofpropermalerolemodels.Singlefathersgetanevenmorefocused version of this sociocultural stink-eye, the fact that they do“women’swork”notquiteexcusedbynecessity.Althoughhands-onfatherhoodandeventhe“stay-at-homedad”phenomenonseemtobegaining respectability currently (particularly in socially liberalcountrieslikeSweden),thebeliefthatwomenareinherentlymorefitto parent is so deeply entrenched that inAmericamany people areunderthemistakenimpressionthatthelawrequiresdivorcingmotherstobegivencustodyofanychildren.[9]

We have been trained for a very long time, in other words, toconsider “nontraditional” families troublesome at best and activelydestructiveatworst.Theresultsofthematrixofeconomic,social,andcivic privilege that has developed around the heterosexual nuclearhousehold have long been taken as proof that such households aresomehow inherently better and more successful. There are many,including the nonprofit advertising agency Campaign for OurChildren, who continue to claim, using billboards, bus-sideadvertisements, radio,andmore, thatchildrenofmarriedparentsarebetter off simply because their parents are married.[10] But as thework of sociologists Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey indicates,much of the research that supposedly proves that unique benefitsderivefromhavingaparentofeachbiologicalsex—thetraditionalsetofmarriedheterosexualparents—mistakenlyconflatesparentalsexeswith parental numbers. It is more important that there be enoughparents to go around than it is that those parents be of particularbiologicalsexes.[11]A recent study byNanetteGartrell andHennyBosinPediatricsappearstoconfirmthis,showingthatthechildrenoflesbian families seem, if anything, to be better adjusted and moresuccessfulthantheirpeerswhogrowupwithconventional,different-sexparents.[12]Having same-sexparents, inotherwords,doesnotappeartobealiabilityforchildren’sdevelopment.

Thiscouldbewelcomedasa liberatingmoment, theconfirmationthat the biologically critical, socially central, and symbolicallyenormous task of parenting the next generation doesn’t have to be

189

limited to a particular kind of parent. Yet even in the pages of thefairlyreservedAtlantic,malefeartrumpedegalitarianpossibility:initsJune/July 2010 issue, theAtlantic headlined its coverage of BiblarzandStacey’sresearch“AreFathersNecessary?”

It might as well have been headlined “Is HeterosexualityNecessary?” The father-headed family has historically been thestandard inWestern culture, and practically the insignia of middle-class normalcy. The desire to mate with an opposite-sex partner toform such a family was, according to Krafft-Ebing, what made aperson “heterosexual.” The father-headed nuclear family has a longtrack record of being the version of the family that is consideredsocially,politically, and scientificallycorrect.Butwhengametescanbeharvestedbyneedleandthesparkoflifetransmittedinapetridish,whenchildrencanbesuccessfullyandhappilyrearedbyparentswhoare not parts of a male-female dyad, then the monolith ofheterosexualitylosestwolargeblocksfromitsfoundation.Asthetitleof Robin Marantz Henig’s 2004 book on the history of IVF,Pandora’sBaby, suggests,modern innovations in thewayswe canand do create new families have opened a culture-changing can ofworms. What these brave new families will mean to the future ofheterosexuality,ofcourse,itismuchtoosoontosay.Nevertheless,itis no longer really plausible, if indeed it ever was, to claim thatheterosexuality is necessary for the creation of families and for thegenerationandrearingofchildren.Doesheterosexualityneedfamiliesand children to help validate its existence more than families andchildrenneedheterosexualitytovalidatetheirs?Itseemslikely.

ATALEOFTWOSPOUSESWhen jazz pianist and father of threeBillyTipton died inSpokane,Washington, in 1989, theAmerican media exploded in shock: theseventy-five-year-oldmanwasawoman.Noone,itseems,knewthisexceptTiptonhimself.Hischildren,informallyadopted,hadonlyeverknown Tipton as their father. Tipton’s five common-law wives,including his last wife, a former stripper named Kitty Oakes,apparentlybelieved—andapparentlyhadno reason todoubt—that a

190

caraccident inTipton’syouthhadmangledhis ribcageandgenitals,leaving him impotent and necessitating the wearing of protectivebandages.

Tipton’slifehaditsupsanddowns,likeanyother.Hismarriagestended not towork outwell, and his lastwifewas abusive enoughthatTiptonendedupraisinghisyoungestchildasasolofather.Hiscareerwasonlymodestlysuccessful,muchofitspentworkingoutofSpokane’sgranddameofaGildedAgehotel,theDavenport.Hewasalovingparent,though,andhemanagedtomakeaconsistentlivingina notoriously fickle industry, not small things. Still, Billy Tipton’smost impressive performance was his seamless and completelysuccessfullifeasaman.

Hindsight, of course, is 20/20. After Tipton’s death and therevelation of his biological sex, journalists and biographers wouldlook at photos of the baby-faced Tipton and wonder how peoplecould not have known. Tipton’s ex-wives’ claims that they hadsimplyacceptedhiscar-wreckstoryandadjustedtothe(perhapsnotentirelyunwelcome)ideathatthemanintheirliveswasinfertileandmore interested in their pleasure than his ownwereweighed in thebalance and found only barely credible. But the fact remains thatTipton’schildren,uponhearingthat theirfatherwasawoman,weresostunnedandhurtthattwoofthemchangedtheirlastnames.

More remarkable still was the legal reaction.After Kitty Oakesdied in 2007, a Spokane County probate court upheld the Tiptonchildren’srightsofinheritance.Ineffect,byallowingJonathanClark,ScottMiller,andWilliamTiptonJr. toinherit, thecourtaffirmedthelegitimacy of a highly unorthodox family. The three children werebiologically unrelated, both to one another and to their parents, andnone were ever legally adopted. The parents were never legallymarriedandwere, in fact,bothof thesamebiological sex.ButwithbothTiptonandOakesdead,thejudgeruled,therewasnoreasontomaketheir children accountable for the fact that their parents hadchosen not to play by the rules. The (Spokane)Spokesman-Reviewheadline writer had quite a job composing a headline to convey it:“Judge:BillyTipton’s‘Sons’CanInheritTheir‘Mother’s’Estate.”

191

Itwasanoteworthydecision.Washingtonlawdoesnot,ordinarily,permit illegally adopted children not named specifically in a will toinheritproperty.Inthisinstance,however,thejudgeagreedwiththeattorneyforOakes’sestatethat,eventhoughthethreeTiptonchildrenknewtheywereadopted,andthatKittyOakeswasnottheirbiologicalmother, “the Tiptons were a family.” For Superior Court judgeMichaelPrice,beingafamily—regardlessofpaperwork,oreventheparents’biologicalsexes—was,intheend,enough.

In the case of Christie Lee Littleton, on the other hand, beingfamilywasnowherenearenough.Norwashavingdoneeverything,includingchanginglegalandphysicalsex,strictlybythebook.Bornmale and christened Lee Cavazos in SanAntonio, Texas, in 1952,ChristieLeeLittletonfeltfromtoddlerhoodthatsheshouldhavebeenfemale.Thisdistressedherparentsandthedoctorstowhomtheytookthechild,buttheregimensofmalehormonestowhichLittletonwassubjected in attempted masculinization therapy did not change herfeelings.BythetimeLittletonwasseventeen,shehadbeguntoseekout a sex change, andwhen shewas twenty-three, shemanaged tobecomepartofaprogramat theUniversityofTexasHealthScienceCenterthatwouldfinallyassistherinchangingherhormonesandheranatomy.In1977,shechangedhernametoChristieLee;in1979,thegenital surgeries that renderedhermedically femalewerecompleted.In 1989, the happily female Christie Lee Cavazos, radiant in whitelace,married JonathanMark Littleton inKentucky,where theymetand settled down to a pleasant, unremarkable life together, latermovingbacktoTexas.

It should have been a “happily ever after” story, the kind ofgender-normative, heterosexual marriage that conservative punditspraiseasthebackboneoftraditionalsociety.Forsevenyears,itwas.Then,tragically,JonathanMarkLittletondiedbeforehistime.Afteraperiod of mourning her husband, Christie decided to open a caseagainst her late husband’s physician, Mark Prange, for medicalmalpracticeleadingtowrongfuldeath.

Was there actual medical malpractice involved inMr. Littleton’sdeath?Wemayneverknow.Certainlytherehasneverbeenaverdict

192

ontheissue,foralmostimmediately,Mrs.Littleton’sattemptstoseekredress in the matter of her husband’s death were derailed bysomething she surely thought she had put well behind her: herprevious life of being identified as a man. Prange’s lawyers’counterargumentinthesuitwasasimpleone.ChristieLittleton,theyargued,wasnotentitledtofilesuitasJonathanMarkLittleton’snext-of-kin,forthesimplereasonthatthemarriagebetweenthetwocouldnotpossiblyhavebeenvalid.BecauseMrs.Littletonhadbegunlifeasa boy, because her cells carriedXY chromosomes, and because, astheyargued, sex reassignmentonly changed the appearance andnotthe facts of biology, she could not be in a valid marriage to abiologicalman.

Determinedtogethercaseheard,ChristieLittletonandherlawyerspursued the case through multiple appeals.After the Texas FourthCourtofAppealsrefusedtoacknowledgethevalidityoftheLittletonmarriage,Mrs.LittletonandherlegalteamtookthecasetotheTexasStateSupremeCourt,inhopesthatareviewofthelawbeinginvokedinthecasewouldhaveapositiveresult.

Itfailed.TheUSSupremeCourtrefusedtoreviewthecase.Forallintentsandpurposes,ChristieLittletonhasnorecoursewithregardtothedeathofherspouse,astateofaffairsofwhichthefederaljudiciaryapparentlyapproves.Wherethingsrest—atleastinTexas—isthatitispossible for a US state to decide that sex is determined solely bychromosomes, that it comes in two and only two types, and that itcannot be meaningfully legally changed, regardless of medicalintervention.

This,asChristieLittletonandmanycommentatorsonthecasehavepointedout,isnotonlymean-spiritedandreductive,butignorant.Thelaw, of course, is not obligated to be kind, and it is certainly notobligatedtorecognizethequalityof“familyness”thatappearstohavemovedthejudgeintheTiptoncase.Butonecouldmaketheargument,asindeedChristieLittletonandherlegalteamhavetriedtodo,thatthestateshouldrecognizetheevidencethatclearlydemonstratesthatsexisnowherenearabinaryaffair.

Biology,asithappens,agreeswithChristieLittleton.Althoughthe

193

majority of people have sex chromosomes that match one of twoprimarytypes—XYformales,XXforfemales—asizeableminorityof people, including my own partner, as you may recall, have sexchromosomes of some other type. Or types: not only can anindividualhaveasinglesetofsexchromosomesthatareneitherXXorXY and can have, for instance,XXYorXYYorXO, but theymayalsohavedifferentsetsofsexchromosomesindifferentcellsdueto the phenomena known as mosaicism and chimerism.[13] Mypartner,who is both genetically intersex and an example of geneticmosaicism, has some cells with XY sex chromosomes and otherswith XXY. One wonders which one the court would considerauthoritative? If my partner and I married in Texas, would ourmarriage be valid? It might, if the court, in its Solomonic wisdom,weretotaketheopinionthatasingleperson’schromosomescouldbesplitinhalf.

Buteventhiswouldonlymakeourmarriagelegallybindingifmyown sex chromosomes are what I assume them to be. Like mostpeople,Idonotactuallyknowmyownkaryotype.ItisquitepossiblethatI,likehundredsofthousandsofotherpeople,havebeenintersexallmylifeandsimplydonotknowit.Nogovernment,includingthatofTexas,hasyetmadegettingakaryotypeaprerequisiteforapplyingforamarriagelicense.IfTexas,oranyotherlocality,isgoingtolimitmarriagetopeoplewhosegenesconformtoaparticularpattern,thisisaproblem.Peopledon’tfallinlovewithchromosomes,afterall.Theydon’t have sex with chromosomes, and they certainly don’t getmarriedtochromosomes.Sexismorethangenetics.Muchmore.

Asmedicaltechnologygetsmoresophisticated,andwelearnabouteven more varieties and variations of human biological sex, itbecomeseverclearerthatthinkingofbiologicalsexasbinarymaybeconvenient,but it isnotaccurate.This isalso truewhen itcomes tothinking of biological sex as fixed and unchanging.While it is truethat,as theTexasAppealsCourtwrote inOctober1999,“Themalechromosomes do not changewith either hormonal treatment or sexreassignmentsurgery.Biologicallyapostoperativefemaletranssexualis still a male,” it is also true that the scalpel cuts both ways.

194

Anatomically,atranswomanwhohasundergoneavaginoplasty—thesurgicalremovalofpenis,scrotum,andtesticlesandthecreationofavaginaandvulva—hasfunctionally thesamegenitalanatomyasanybiologicalfemalewhohashadahysterectomy.Twosuchwomenmayalso be very hormonally similar, given the tendency for post-hysterectomypatientstobegivenhormonereplacementtherapy.

Biologyisnotdestiny.Itisn’tevennecessarilypermanent.Evenifmedicalexpertiseandtechnologydidnotprovideuswiththemeanstoidentify andunderstandnature’sbiologicalbounty and to createourown,genderwouldstillbecomplex,multifarious,andunpredictable.As the historical record bears out, there have always been BillyTiptons.Maleprivilegecanbequitemotivating:womenhavelivedasmeninorder tofollowGod,obtaineducations, join theprofessions,support their families, andgo towar, in addition todoing it so thatthey could love other women without being persecuted. Historicalexamplesofmenlivingaswomenarethinnerontheground,probablyinpartbecausetoabandonmasculinityistoabandonpower.Still,weknowthatmenhavelivedaswomen,eithertemporarilyorlong-term,inorder toescapefromdanger, togoundercover,and, inrarecaseslike that of the legendary eighteenth-century diplomat and spy theChevalierd’Eon,apparentlyjustbecausetheywantedto.

Our culture has yet to come to grips with this. The hopelesshodgepodgeofWesternlegalapproachestosexandgenderisjustoneresultofourincompletegraspofsexuality.Itmakesnologicalsensethat Christie Littleton has been denied, rather vindictively it wouldseem,thesamehumanelegalconsiderationofhersocialidentityandmarriagethatBillyTiptonreceivedposthumously.[14]

Wouldliftingtheheavyhandofthebinarysex/gendersystemfromthelawreallymean,asconservativecriticssometimeswarnitwill,theendofmarriageandthetraditionalfamily?Itdoesn’tseemlikelythatit would.Norwould it necessarily spell the end of heterosexuality.Surely, if male and female are two of a variety of sexes, andmasculineandfemininetwoofavarietyofgenders,thenheterosexualand homosexual are two of a variety of ways to combine them.Egalitarianism, human rights, and civil rights are slowly but surely

195

forcing the hand of the law. The lawmay not eagerly embrace thecomplexities of sex and gender, but the more that human beingscontinuetoexistinwaysthatchallengethebordersanddynamicsof“heterosexual”and“homosexual,”themorethelawwillbecompelledtofindsomewaytoanswer.

ANDINTHEEND...Recently,overthekitchentable,Iaskedmypartnerwhathethoughtthe answer was. How did he think our relationship should becharacterized, in termsof sexualorientation?Heproddedhisdinnerwithhischopsticksforamoment,lookingthoughtful.

“Ithink,”heventured,“itdependsonwho’sasking.”He’s right. Whether we are perceived as heterosexual or

nonheterosexualdependsagreatdealonwho’s lookingatus.How,andevenwhether,wenamethedynamicofourrelationshipforothersdependsagreatdealonwhowe’retalkingto.

It comesdown to context and safety.Asa couple,wequalify inmanywaystoidentifyasnonheterosexual.Individually,webothhaveourqueercredentialswellinhand.Butasacouple,it’snotsoclear... or so queer. My femmeness tends to make my queerness lessobvious;hisgeekinesstendstomakehisandrogynylessstriking.Tothecasualobserver,wemayappear tobea fewbubblesoffplumb,but still pretty safely within the tolerances of “male/female couple,kissing, presumed straight.” The qualities of our relationship thatmake“heterosexual”a less thancompletelyappropriateadjectivearenot necessarily obvious to someone seeing us bickering over whatkind of salad dressing to buy or laughing together aswewalk ourdog.

What this means is that, if we want it, heterosexual privilege isoursforthetaking.Wehavetheunparalleledprivilegeofbeingabletogo about our liveswithout our relationship attracting notice. Itmaynotseemlikemuch,butitis.Whenyouareunlikelytoexperienceanynegativeconsequencesfordoingwhatyoudoandbeingwhoyouare,youcandowhatyouneedandwanttodointheworldwithnomorethan an average amount of fuss, bother, oppression, and stress. It’s

196

what life should be like for everyone, but isn’t. For those easilyidentifiedasnotbeingheterosexual,itisofteninvasively,annoyingly,inequitably, harassingly, even violently otherwise. Having yoursexuality and your relationships be perceived as “normal” providesunearnedprivilege.Itaccruesautomaticallyandinvisiblytoeveryonewhoisperceivedasbeingheterosexualforaslongastheycontinuetobeperceivedthatway.Thephenomenonissoautomaticandsobasic,both todoxaandexperience, thatmostof thepeoplewhohave thisprivilege don’t perceive it, let alone perceive it as a privilege. Theyassume—asindeeddoxatellsthem—thatit’sjustthewaythingsare.

But of course it’s not. Heterosexual privilege is the result of anenormousculturalmachine.Partsoftheapparatusexistedlongbeforetheconceptof“heterosexual”wassomuchasatwinkleinKarl-MariaKertbeny’s eye; parts were machined by the urban industrialistnineteenth century, and still other parts have been cobbled togetherover time by psychiatrists and statisticians, ad executives, lawyers,andaveritablearmyofmoony, June-y songwriters. It is a complexand franklymonumental cultural inheritance, accreted over decades,filtering infromeverydirectionand thusseeminglynoneatall.Ourartissteepedinit;ourmediaaredrivenbyit.Werememberourmostclassicstoriesthroughitstunnelvision—AntonyandCleopatra’staleis a political thriller and a bloodbath, not a swoony romance.Regardlessofwhomwedesireorhavesexwith,nomatterwhomweform our households or raise our children with, heterosexualityinfluenceshowwekeephouse,howwespendourmoney,andhowwebuildourfamilies.Themodelswehave,andthestandardsweareexpected tomaintain, come to us via heterosexuality as a normativestate.Heterosexuality—whatever the current version of that concepthappens tobe—isunremarkablebecause it is thestandardbywhicheverythingelseismeasured.Thatisheterosexualprivilege.

Whether my partner and I are willing to give up the protectivecamouflageofbeingpresumedtobestraight,therefore,dependsonalotofthings.Whowantstoknow?Thewaitressatthedinerdoesnotcare; to herwe’re just the two-top by thewindow that ordered theBLT and the Cobb salad. But sometimes people do ask, andwhen

197

they do we have to evaluate whether their interest seems friendly.Someone who seems like a kindred spirit can likely get us talkingopenlyaboutintersexissues,femmeidentitypolitics,orouradorablebaby nephew and his gay trans daddies. We don’t necessarilyannounce ourselves as queer in those conversations, but we don’tgenerally need to. But if questions about our sexuality arrive withsneersor snarls, orwe’re staredat like circus freaks?That’s a littletougher.Sometimeswetrytoturnitintoateachingmoment,achanceto informandenlighten.Sometimeswe swallowourprideandpickupanotherheavysackofprivilegedguiltaswepointsolemnlytoourhetero-passablefaçade,hopingthatthejerkdujourwilljustgoaway.

ThefactthathowmypartnerandIanswerthequestionofwhetherwe’restraightornotisn’tcut-and-dried,andthatitdoesmatterwho’sasking iswhatultimatelygivesmean answer tomyquestion aboutmyownsexualorientation:ifIwereheterosexual,I’donlyhaveoneanswer.

Ihadhoped,whenIsetouttowritethisbook,thatsomewhereinthehistoryofheterosexualityIwouldfindamasterkey,aone-size-fits-alldefinitionof“heterosexual”thatIcoulduseonceandforalltocharacterizemyownrelationship.WhatIfoundinsteadwasamousethatroared,amoderntermofartposingasaneternalveritydressedinClassical-language garb, and an assimilative juggernaut. Trying todeterminewhethermy life partnershipwas heterosexual by probingthehistoryofheterosexualitywaslikeaskingquestionsofaMagic8-Ball “Did our falling in love follow a traditionally heterosexualpattern?”It is decidedly so. “Does the fact that we aren’t legallymarriedmakeus less straight thanwewouldbe ifwewere?”Replyhazy, try again later. “Does my attraction to my partner’sandrogynous body characteristicsmakeme nonheterosexual?”Signspoint to yes. “Would Sigmund Freud characterize our sex life asheterosexual?”My sources say no. “How about the AmericanPsychologicalAssociation?”Replyhazy,tryagain.PerhapsIwilljustalternatewhichboxIcheckoffonthoseclinicforms,adifferentoneeachtime.

Fortunately,Iamnotdismayedtodiscoverthatintheend,Icannot

198

reallylayclaimtothemuch-vauntedlabelofheterosexual.Itbothersmemuchmore,infact,thatIsometimesclaimit,orhaveitclaimedforme,withoutintendingto.Tolayclaimtoheterosexuality,itseemstomeattheendofallmyexplorationsintoitshistoryanditsnature,isnotsomuchtoclaimanyupperhandasitistopledgeallegiancetoaparticular configuration of sex and power in a particular historicalmoment. There isn’t much in that configuration, or its heritage ofclassismandmisogyny,thatIfindappealingenoughtowanttoclaimasmyown.

Heterosexualityseemstobebiggerthanweare,independent,morepowerful. It is not. In reality, we are the ones whose imaginationscreatedtheheterosexual/homosexualscheme,andwearealsotheoneswhosemultitudesthatschemeultimatelycannotcontain.Eventuallyasa culture we will imagine our way into some different grandexplanation,someotherschemeforexplainingouremotionsandourdesires and our passionate entanglements. For now, we believe inheterosexual.Andthis,too,shallpass.

199

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Myheartfelt thanks and deep admiration go tomany, including butdefinitely not limited to S. Bear Bergman, LeighAnn Craig,AnneGwin, LesleyA. Hall, Patrick Harris,Arianna Iliff, Laura WatersJackson, Lisa Buckley, Keridwen Luis, China Martens, JudithMcLaughlin, Kelly Morris, Moira Russell, Danya Ruttenberg,ChristopherSchelling, JordanStein,MarySykes,ElizabethTamny,and Rhetta Wiley. I also salute and thank those academics andresearchers without whose work this book would have beencompletelyimpossible,includingStephanieCoontz,PeterGay,ChrysIngraham,SteviJackson,AngusMcLaren,StevenSeidman,EdwardStein,LawrenceStone,JeffreyWeeks,MarilynYalom,andthe late,much-missed Vern Bullough and Roy Porter. Especial intellectualthanksaredue to the redoubtable JonathanNedKatz, towhoseTheInventionofHeterosexuality this bookowes somuch.Much that isgoodandrightaboutthisbookisowedtothesepeople,eitherdirectlyorindirectly.Whateverfaultsorerrorsmayremainareminealone.

Thanks are also due to the Creative Baltimore Fund, and toEdenfred and its sponsoring organization, the Terry FamilyFoundation,forabitofworldenoughandtime.

Finally, there isnotenoughgratitude toconveymythanks tomybeautifulandboldpartner,MalcolmGin, foreverything,verymuchincludingbeing such agood sport aboutbeingmade into a framingdeviceforahistorybook.

200

NOTES

INTRODUCTION1. Some XXY people discover that, unlike genotypical men but

exactly like many genotypical women, they are sensitive tofluctuationsinthehormonesofthewomenaroundthem,taggingalongbiochemicallywiththemenstrualcyclesofnearbywomen.MypartnerandIthussufferthroughPMSsymptomstogether—breasttenderness,foodcravings,emotionalvolatility,theworks.Itmakes for some spectacular fights, but typically heterosexualit’snot.

2. Or for that matter call someone else one. The same is true of“homosexual.”Thetermswerecoinedatthesametime.

3.“Hetero”and“homo”arebothGreek,while“sexual”isfromtheLatin. The decidedly unorthodox—and terribly uneducated-sounding,totheClassicallytrained—combinationshavebeenthebuttofjokesamongdead-languagenerdsforalongtimenow.

4.MoneybecameinfamousforhismishandlingoftheDavidReimercase, also known as the “John/Joan” case, which ultimatelyculminated in Reimer’s suicide. The case is detailed inColapinto’sbiographyofReimer,AsNatureMadeHim.

5.Theideathatwomenandmenmightoperatewithdifferentsexualorientation models also offers a big temptation to socialDarwinistsandevolutionarybiologistsgiven,astheysometimesare,toleapsoflogic.Wewoulddowelltobewaretheoverlytidyexplanation.Thisismessyandlargelyunexploredstuff.

CHAPTERONE:THELOVETHATCOULDNOTSPEAKITSNAME1. The idea that there might be something called a “sexual

orientation”would not arise until after the turn of the twentiethcentury.

2.Thestorybehindtheincreasedageofconsentinthelastquarterofthe nineteenth century is a fabulous and lurid tale that includes

201

muckrakerjournalism,shamelesspoliticking,andthekidnappingof a minor. See myVirgin: The Untouched History for anoverview.

3.Electroluxbrandvacuumcleanersanddemonicphallusesare,afterall,bothmembersofaclassofobjectslooselydefinedas“thingsinvented wholesale by human beings.” Expressions of humanbias were rampant in other scientific fields besides taxonomy.Schiebinger’sNature’s Body provides a vivid survey ofEnlightenmentandnineteenth-century impositionofveryhumanvalues on the natural world, including claims that femaleorangutansmodestlycovered theirgenitalswhenapproachedbyhumanmen,andthetellingprocessbywhichtheunusuallylargeandimposinginsectthathadforgenerationsbeenattributedwithsupremeand lordlypoweras the“kingof thehive”became thegrotesquely fat, totally passive, brainless, mechanicallyreproductive “queen bee” as soon as it was realized that it laideggs.

4.Stone,TheFamily,Sex,andMarriageinEngland,1500–1800.5. That this happened extremely rarely does not make it less

horrifying that it happened at all. Nineteenth-century men andwomen alike had their genitals operated upon, sometimesdisastrously, in thenameof curbingmasturbation and impropersexualappetites.

6.Guernsey,quotedinSeidman,“ThePowerofDesire,”p.49.7.Maurice,“WheretoGetMen.”8.James’sessaywasprompted,asweresomanyotherilluminating

writingsonthesubjectofsexualdevianceandsocialorder,bythetrialsofOscarWilde.SeeEllmann’s1988biographyofWildeformoreonthetrialsandontheirfallout.

9.For thecontentof thePrussianPenalCodeof1851,seeDrage,TheCriminalCodeoftheGermanEmpire,p.225.

10.Ulrichs’sessentialistinversiontheorywasalsoswiftlyembraced.We still see it today in many of the rhetorical and medicalstrategies that explain and legitimize transsexuality: the “mantrappedinawoman’sbody”tropeisundilutedUlrichs.

202

11.Thedebutoftheword“hetero-sexual”wasinMaryKeytIsham’sreview of Freud’sBeyond the Pleasure Principle andGroupPsychologyandtheAnalysisof theEgo in theNewYorkTimesBookReview,September7,1924.

CHAPTERTWO:CARNALKNOWLEDGE1. From the diary of James Blake, December 27, 1851. Cited in

Rotundo,“RomanticFriendship.”2.Froma letterwrittenbyDanielWebster to J.HerveyBingham,

January2,1805.Citedinibid.3. Theword “doxa”was first coined and used this way in social

anthropologistPierreBourdieu’s1972bookOutlineofaTheoryofPractice.

4.Reijneveldetal.“InfantCryingandAbuse.”5.Freud,ACaseofHysteria,p.146.6.See,forexample,Hartmann,“SigmundFreudandHisImpacton

OurUnderstandingofMaleSexualDysfunction.”7.AsBritish philosopher of scienceKarl Popper put it in a 1963

essay, “ ‘Clinical observations,’ like all other observations, areinterpretations in the light of theories; and for this reason alonetheyareapttoseemtosupportthosetheoriesinthelightofwhichthey were interpreted.” (See Popper, “Science: Conjectures andRefutations.”) The astute Popper also recognized the mythicpowerofFreudianideas,writingoftheEgo,theSuper-Ego,andtheIdthat“nosubstantiallystrongerclaimtoscientificstatuscanbemadeforitthanforHomer’scollectedstoriesfromOlympus.Thesetheoriesdescribesomefacts,butinthemannerofmyths.”

8.SeeFredricWertham’sinfamous1954 SeductionoftheInnocentor, for more context, Wright’sComic Book Nation. On“abstinence-only”education,seeValenti,ThePurityMyth.

9. The theory of marking was first developed by linguist RomanJakobsonandelaboratedbyother linguistsandsociolinguistsofthePragueschool.

10.Tanenbaum,Slut,p.10.

203

11.Karras,SexualityinMedievalEurope,p.17.12. “Reparative therapy” is psychotherapy intended to convert a

homosexually identified person to heterosexuality. Thiscontroversial form of therapy was denounced as harmful inAugust2009bytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

13. I have always wondered whether people who make theseargumentsaboutsexualityfeelthesamewayaboutreligiousfaith.So faras Iamaware, there isnogeneticorbiologicalbasis forthat,either.

14. James Owen, “Homosexual Activity Among Animals StirsDebate, ”National Geographic News, July 23, 2004,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/56958719.html.

15. This is called hypodermic insemination, and is reasonablycommonamong invertebrates.Themale injects spermatophores,sperm-carryingpackets, into the body of the female, whereeventuallythespermenterthelymphaticsystemandareconveyedto the ovaries, where fertilization takes place. In some species,suchastheAfricanbatbugAfrocimexconstrictus, malesdothistoothermales,aswell.

16.Sometimesthesemass-marketperiodicalsurveysarecosponsoredby health or medical organizations, such as the Kaiser FamilyFoundation’scollaborationwithSeventeenmagazine.

17. The research on the reliability of self-reporting in sexologicalstudies is at least as enlightening as the sexological studiesthemselves. See, for instance, Gillmore, “Comparison of DailyandRetrospectiveReportsofVaginalSex inHeterosexualMenandWomen.”

18.Halperin,“IsThereaHistoryofSexuality?,”p.257

CHAPTERTHREE:STRAIGHTSCIENCE1. Lavoisier’s proof lay in demonstrating that, in the absence of a

specific gas (oxygen), whose presence could be measured byweight, combustible itemswould not burn and oxidizable itemswould not rust. Thus it was revealed that combustion was an

204

interactionbetweenasubstanceand thegases inproximity to it,andnotaninteractionbetweentheessentialmatterofasubstanceandthephlogistonalsocontainedinthesamesubstance.

2.Robie,SexandLife,p.359.3.Afinebriefreviewoftheavailablehistoryonmasturbationandits

“cures” is Darby, “The Masturbation Taboo and the Rise ofRoutineMaleCircumcision.”

4.Gillis,“BadHabitsandPerniciousResults.”Smallchildrenoftenself-soothe by touching their genitals, as well as by thumb-sucking, sometimes simultaneously. One does not cause theother, and neither is typically considered to pose medicalproblems. Currently, the American Dental Association assertsthatthumb-suckingmaycauseissuesfordentaldevelopmentifitisstillgoingonatthetimethatthepermanentteetharecomingin,but that most children spontaneously stop thumb-sucking wellbeforethispoint.

5.Clitoridectomy,or thesurgicalexcisionof theclitoris,enjoyedamercifully brief vogue in the 1860s as a masturbationpreventative. More hay has been made of this than is perhapswarranted, as itwasnever amainstreampractice andwashotlycontroversial even in its era.Althoughboth this formofgenitalcutting and the many other forms of female genital cuttingpracticed indigenously in various cultures around the worldconstituteefforts to control female sexual behavior, there is noknown direct relationship between Victorian clitoridectomy andotherformsoffemalegenitalcutting.

6.AcrosstheAtlantic,whereroutinecircumcisionneverparticularlycaught on, eminent surgeon Sir Jonathan Hutchinson wrote aninfluential article, “On Circumcision as a Preventative ofMasturbation,” recommending the same and saying that“measures more radical than circumcision would, if publicopinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to manyparentsofbothsexes.”

7.Carroll,ThroughtheLooking-Glass(1871).8.Greenspan,“CourtshipinDrosophila.”.

205

9.Haumann,“Homosexuality,Biology,andIdeology,”p.69.10. The same critics pointed out that, for similar reasons, the

usefulnessof“homosexual”waslikewisesuspect.11.Forexample,seeOrdover,AmericanEugenics.12. To say nothing of the persistent belief in the hymen and its

putativemeanings.SeemyVirgin:TheUntouchedHistory.13.Montegazza is quoted in Herrn, “On the History of Biological

TheoriesofHomosexuality,”p.41.14. The possibility that a researcher’s opinionmight introduce bias

was,itseems,notentertained.15.Masculinizedfemalenesswasalsoaproblem,butwasbothseen

andacknowledgedmorerarelythanitsobverse.16.FromStein,TheMismeasureofDesire,p.234.17.Darwin,OntheOriginofSpecies,p.57.18.Schiebinger,Nature’sBody.19.Russett,SexualScience,p.27.20.Ricketts,“BiologicalResearchonHomosexuality,”p.90.21.Stein,“DeconstructingSexualOrientation,”pp.84–85.

CHAPTERFOUR:THEMARRYINGTYPE1. TheSatyr is discussed at some length in Lanser, “Singular

Politics,”pp.297–324.2.Hill,WomenAlone,especiallychapter9.3.Cotton,AMeetHelp,pp.14–15.4.Idon’tspecifythatthisappliesonlytodifferent-sexrelationships

herebecause itdoesn’t.This is somethingwe tend tobelieve istrue of all romantic and sexual relationships, regardless of thesexesorgendersoftheparticipants.

5. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a revision; theoriginalread“life,liberty,andproperty.”Atellingdifference.

6.Porter,FleshintheAgeofReason,p.9.7.Astell,“SomeReflectionsUponMarriage.”8. The notion that Christianity would be better served by a

priesthood of all believers rather than by tiers of increasingly

206

powerfulclergy toppedbyan infallibleSupremePontiff isverylikethenotionthatnationswouldbebetteroffwithagovernmentoftheirowncitizenryratherthanlayersofincreasinglypowerfulhereditaryaristocratsatopwhomperchedanemperororking.

9.Proofthatamarriagewasunconsummatedwoulddothetrick,aswould proof that amarriagewas in some degree incestuous orthatone’sspousewasaheretic.

10.Jewishmarriage,thenandnow,ishighlycontractualinnatureandcentersaroundthewritingandsigningofaketubah,ormarriagecontract, which specifies, among other things, the settlement awomanmayexpecttoreceiveifherhusbanddivorcesher.

11.Therearestillsomeholdoutlocalitiesthatdonotpermitno-faultdivorce, and indeed there are some, like the island nation ofMalta,thatdonotpermitdivorceatall.Caveatnupturus.

12.Kirchbergv.Feenstra,450U.S.455(1981).13.Gay,TheEducationoftheSenses,p.193.14.Smith-Rosenberg,DisorderlyConduct,p.253.15. See US Department of Labor website,

http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm.16. SeeUN website,

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/women/women96.htm#labour17.QuotedinMoscucci,TheScienceofWoman,p.28.18.Ellis,“ThePsychicStateinPregnancy,”p.229.19.WhatRussellmeantby thiswas thatcouplesmighthavesexual

intercourse without being married and only needed to concernthemselveswithmarriageifthewomanbecamepregnant.

20. The Quiverfull movement is an originallyAmericanmovementwithin fundamentalist Protestantism that eschews all forms ofcontraceptionandfamilyplanningandhasastrongfocusonlargefamily sizes as a gift fromGod. The name comes from Psalm127, where having a large number of children is compared tohavingaquiverfullofarrows.Foracriticaloverview,seeJoyce,Quiverfull.

21.Gillis,AWorldofTheirOwnMaking,p.153.22.Stone,TheFamily,Sex,andMarriageinEngland,p.64.

207

23.Hall,ConceivingParenthood,pp.123–211.24.CitedinReed,FromPrivateVicetoPublicVirtue, p.426.Moore

later contributed materially to the passage of family-planninglegislation under the Nixon administration whose eugenicunderpinnings were quite plain: the intended end-users of thefamily-planning funding that the bill provided were to be thementally ill, the indigent,Cuban refugees,migrantworkers, andNativeAmericans.

25.InBritishmilltowns,Malthusianandsocialistactivistswerealsorunningdirecteducationalefforts;Ittmannnotesthatsometownswereknownforthequantityoffamily-planningpamphletstobefound decorating the walls of the communal privies. Ittmann,“FamilyLimitationandFamilyEconomy.”

26.Marks,SexualChemistry,p.35.27.Watkins,OnthePill,p.50.28. Cook,The Long Sexual Revolution, p. 88; Office for National

Statistics, “Rise in UK Fertility Continues,”http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget. asp?ID=951 , viewed onMarch17,2010.

29. “Births: Preliminary Data for 2007,” National Vital StatisticsReports57,no.12(March18,2009),USDepartmentofHealthand Human Services, Centers for Disease Control andPrevention,NationalCenter forHealth Statistics,NationalVitalStatistics System. Released as file nvsr57_12.pdf fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm.

30.Goodwin,“WhoMarriesandWhen?”

CHAPTERFIVE:WHAT’SLOVEGOTTODOWITHIT?1.Theuseofmusictodeliverthesethemes,inDisney,makesthem

allthemorepowerfulandmemorable.“SomedayMyPrinceWillCome”was listed, in 2004, as nineteenth in theAmericanFilmInstitute’sTVspecial 100Years...100Songs, whichpresentedarankingofthebestsongsfromthehistoryoffilm.

2. These figures have undoubtedly risen.My statistics come from

208

Walt Disney World’s publicly released data athttp://wdwnews.com/viewpressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=99882&siteid=1(accessdateApril2010).

3.Huet,TheHistoryofRomances,pp.3–4.4.Ibid.,p.129.5.Ibid.,p.145.6.Ibid.,pp.142–43.7.Stone,TheFamily,Sex,andMarriageinEngland,p.284.8. Government programs have generously madeThe Ogilvies and

manyothernovelsoftheperiodavailableforfreereadingonline.Theymakeforaninterestingandilluminatingreadingexperience.AlistofavailabletextsisattheLiteraryHeritage(UK)website,http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/eauthors.htm.

9.InGay,TheTenderPassion,p.142.10. Bloch, “Changing Conceptions of Sexuality and Romance in

Eighteenth-CenturyAmerica,”p.22.11.FromThomasShepard,TheParableoftheTenVirginsOpened

andApplied(1656).QuotedinWinship,“BeholdtheBridegroomCometh!”

12.Berend,“‘TheBestOrNone!’”p.937.13.Farrar(writingas“ALady”),TheYoungLady’sFriend.14.Albertine,“Heart’sExpression”;Eustace,“‘TheCornerstoneofa

CopiousWork.’”15.Kingsley,lettertoGrenfell,October1,1843,quotedinGay,The

TenderPassion,p.307.16.Kingsley, letter toGrenfell,October4,1843,quoted in ibid.,p.

308.17.Weld,LettersofTheodoreDwightWeld,AngelinaGrimkeWeld,

andSarahGrimke.18.Ibid.19. Brown, “The Action for Alienation of Affections,” p. 472.

Alienationofaffections,asatort,isnolongerrecognizedbymostAmericanstates.No-faultdivorcesupersededit.

20.The term“date”startsappearing inprint referring toacourtshipcontextaroundthistime,accordingtoMarilynYalom,AHistory

209

oftheWife.21.Rothman,“SexandSelf-Control.”22.SeeJacobson’sbrilliantWhitenessofaDifferentColor formore

onthisprocess.23.Thetropeofthe“beautysecret”persiststothisday.Womenare

not supposed to betray the fact that beauty very often requiresquiteabitofwork,aswellasexpense.

24. Public houses, taverns, bars, and so on were still mostly malepreserves,althoughthatwastochangeintime.

25.Bailey,FromFrontPorchtoBackSeat,p.28.26.Ibid.,p.23.27.Royden,SexandCommon-Sense,pp.54–55.28.Rothman,“SexandSelf-Control.”29.Bailey,FromFrontPorchtoBackSeat.30.FromAlisonNeilans,ChangesinSexMorality(1936),pp.223–

24,quotedinHall,OutspokenWomen,p.202.31. Hall borrowed the concept of Sturm und Drang from the late

eighteenth-centuryearlyRomanticmovementofthesamename.32.Hall,Adolescence,p.97.33.HallknewFreud,withwhosetheoriesonadolescenceHall’shave

considerable overlap, and brought him to speak at ClarkUniversity,whereHallwaspresidentfrom1889to1920.

34.Hall,Adolescence,p.579.35.Bailey,FromFrontPorchtoBackSeat,p.26.36.Ibid.,p.48.37.Kornitzer,TheModernWomanandHerself(1932),p.77,quoted

inHall,OutspokenWomen,p.191.38.Indeed,forthemoreconservative,goingsteadywithoutromantic

lovewaslikewiseamoralpitfall.39.CicelyHamilton,MarriageasaTrade.40.Atkinson,AmazonOdyssey,p.105.41.Shelley,“LesbianismandtheWomen’sLiberationMovement.”42.TowhichradicalslikewriterJoannaRussreplied,“Butwhatisso

dreadfulaboutabandoningmentotheirownresources?Haven’ttheygotany?Menasagroupateveryclasslevelhaverelatively

210

more disposable income than women, more command overinstitutions,more leisure,more immunity from sexual violence,andmorecontrolovercommunityresourcesthanwomen.”(Russ,“For Women Only, Or, What Is That Man Doing under MySeat?,” p. 92.) The schism between mainstream and separatistfeminismscontinuestothisday.

CHAPTERSIX:THEPLEASUREPRINCIPLE1. Mondaini, “Sildenafil Does Not Improve Sexual Function in

Men.”2. Joby Warrick, “Little Blue PillsAmong the Ways CIA Wins

Friends inAfghanistan,”WashingtonPost, December26,2008,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/25/AR2008122500931.html(accessdateJune1,2010).

3.SalesfiguresarePfizer’s,fromViagra.com(accessedMay2010).4. PDE5drugs do have another clinical indication, but it is by far

less common. They are used to treat the disorder known aspulmonary hypertension. Sildenafil, the same drugmarketed asViagra, is also marketed for pulmonary treatment use under adifferentname(Revatio)andatafarlowerprice.

5.Karras,SexualityinMedievalEurope,p.4.6.Ibid.,p.69.7.Laqueur,MakingSex,p.44.8.Stopes,EnduringPassion,p.52.Stopesalsoexpressedthehope

thatunmarriedwomenwhosufferedfromunsatisfied“hunger”ofthis sort could be helped by supplements of glandular extracts(hormones).

9.Menwere inpartgenuinelyafraidofwhatmighthappen if theyfoundthemselvesovertaxedinsuchaway; thehumoralmedicalunderstandingof thebodycommonat the timeheld thatseriousdepletionscausedseriousproblems.Butatthesametimeonegetsthe impression that the fear was a way of masking a certaindelightatthesubversiveideaofbeing“forced”tosubmittosex.

211

10.Cavender,“White-LiveredWiddersandBad-BloodedMen.”11.Hanchett,SexualHealth,p.62.12.Hollick,TheMarriageGuide,p.356.13.Ellis,AnalysisoftheSexualImpulse,p.189.14.Ellis,SexinRelationtoSociety,p.531.15.Robie,SexHistories,pp.15–16.16.Ellis,LittleEssaysofLoveandVirtue,p.125.17. Laipson, “ ‘Kiss without Shame,’” p. 517; Holtzman, “The

PursuitofMarriedLove,”p.46.18.Stockham’s1897book,Karezza, instructedthereaderinaform

ofquasitantric,prolongedsensualplaywithoutorgasmthatwentbythesamename.

19.Katz,InventionofHeterosexuality,p.66.20.JaneGerhard,“Revisiting‘TheMythoftheVaginalOrgasm,’”p.

457.21. It is instructive that the fact that 50 percent of Kinsey’s male

subjects—twice as many as the women—had also reportedextramaritalsexdidnotraisethesamefuror.

22.MuchhayhasbeenmadeofMosher’ssurveyssinceCarlDeglerdiscovered them, not least byDegler.As late as 2010, populargeek-culturewebsiteBoingBoing.netstumbleduponcoverageofthe Mosher papers and proclaimed them, as many had donebefore,asproofpositivethattheVictoriansweren’tprudes.Trueenough,asfaras itgoes,sinceMosher’sdatadoesindicate thatmostofthewomenwhoansweredherquestionsseemtohavefeltpositivelyaboutsexualrelationsandexperiencedorgasmsatleastsometimes. However, forty-six surveys representing forty-fiverespondents,allpatientsofthesamedoctor,canhardlybeclaimedto represent the whole of Victorian womanhood. The Mosherpapersarecertainlytantalizing,butintheend,onlyatease.

23.D’Emilio,IntimateMatters,p.337.24. Densmore, quoted in Gerhard, “Revisiting ‘The Myth of the

VaginalOrgasm,’”p.468.25.Thesecompetingfeministapproachestosexualitywouldcometo

a head at a conference, “TheScholar and theFeminist,” held at

212

BarnardCollegein1982,wheremanyyearsoffeministfactionaltension turned into open conflict. The ensuing “sex wars” infeminist and lesbian-feminist communities lasted for the betterpartofanotherdecade.

26. This observation is made by award-winning director KimberlyPeirceinKirbyDick’s2006documentaryThisFilmHasNotYetBeenRated. Peirce’sBoysDon’tCry(1999),basedonthe1993murderoftransgenderedmanBrandonTeena,depictstheviciousrape and graphic murder of its protagonist, yet the MPAA’sinitialNC-17ratingwasduetothefilm’sdepictionofalengthy,smiling,andthoroughlyconsensualfemaleorgasm.

27. As the horrific rape and murder of Brandon Teena certainlydemonstrates.

28.See,forinstance,Remez,“OralSexamongAdolescents.”29.Whether this canpossiblybe anythingmore thanplacebo-effect

snakeoilisdebatable.TheG-spot’sroleinfemalepleasureisnotparticularlywellunderstood,tothepointthatitsveryexistenceisstillunderbiomedicaldebate.Itisfurthermoreunknownwhethersize has anything to do with its functioning. In any event,collageninjectedintothebodyisslowlydispersedandeventuallyeliminated over the course of severalmonths, so any effects ofsuchaprocedurewouldbetemporaryatbest.

30. Flibanserin was originally developed and tested as anantidepressant, and affects norepinephrine and dopamine levelswhile decreasing serotonin. Its mechanism is therefore quitedifferent to that of vasodilators like Viagra. The difference inmechanism follows the hoary old supposition that men’ssexuality ismechanical andbodilywhilewomen’s is dependenton emotion and psychology. This is only one of the manycriticismsbeingleveledatthedrug.

31.Katz,InventionofHeterosexuality,p.181.

CHAPTERSEVEN:HERETHEREBEDRAGONS1.Jackson,“Sexuality,Heterosexuality,andGenderHierarchy.”

213

2.It’sasizeablelist,anditkeepsgettinglonger.Readersmayrecallnames like Ted Haggard and George Rekers (leading religiousauthorities in the Christian Right), Mark Foley (RepublicancongressmanfromFlorida),andBobAllen(formerFloridastaterepresentative).

3. “Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding ofSexualOrientationandHomosexuality,”AmericanPsychologicalAssociation website(2008),www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf.

4. Cohn maintained to the end that he was not homosexual andclaimed that hewas dying of liver cancer, not ofAIDS-relatedcauses.

5. Gallup, Inc., and Lydia Saad, “Americans’Acceptance of GayRelationsCrosses50%Threshold:IncreasedAcceptancebyMenDriving the Change,” press release, May 25, 2010,http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx(accessedJune4,2010).

6.Diamond,SexualFluidity.7.Coontz,Marriage,aHistory,p.275.8.PopePaulVI,HumanaVitae,1968.9.KatrinBennhold,“InSweden,MenCanHaveItAll,”NewYorkTimes,June9,2010;itisnot,althoughuntilfairlyrecentlyalegalprinciple called the “tender years doctrine,” based on an 1830precedent,heldthatallotherfactorsbeingequal,themotherwasbetter suited to raise a child than the father. The “tender yearsdoctrine”isnow,accordingtoWest’sEncyclopediaofAmericanLaw,generallyconsideredtoviolatetheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentoftheConstitutionandisthusnolongerexplicitlyinvoked.

10. The Campaign for Our Children’s ongoing “MarriageWorks”campaign, which also includes statements like “Married peoplemakemoremoney”and“Marriedpeoplearehappier,”hasbeenrunning since 1987. If it weren’t already obvious that this is apolitical campaign, I note that in my home city of Baltimore,“MarriageWorks”advertisementstendtobeconcentratedinlow-

214

income,majorityAfricanAmericanneighborhoods.11.Biblarz,“HowDoestheGenderofParentsMatter?”p.3.12.Gartrell,“USNationalLongitudinalLesbianFamilyStudy.”13. Normally, organisms have a single genetic code or DNA, an

identical copy of which appears in every cell in the organism.Chromosomalmosaicismmeans that an organismwith a singlesetofDNAneverthelesshassomecellsthatcontainonlycertainsubsets of the complete code, while other cells contain either adifferent subset or a complete set. Chromosomal chimerismmeans that a singleorganismpossesses two (ormore)differentcompletesetsofDNA,onecompletesetofgeneticcodeshowingupinsomepartsofthebodyandanothercompletelydifferentsetofDNAshowingupinotherparts.

14.Thatthiswasaprobatecaseprobablyhadsomethingtodowiththejudicialattitude.Lettingbygonesbebygonesissimplerwhenthetroublemakerisdead.

215

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abelove,Henry.“Freud,MaleHomosexuality,andtheAmericans.”Dissent33(Winter1986):59–69.

———.“SomeSpeculationsontheHistoryof‘SexualIntercourse’During the ‘Long Eighteenth Century’ in England.”Genders 6(November1989):125–30.

Abramson, Paul R. “Sexual Science: Emerging Discipline orOxymoron?”Journal of Sex Research 127, no. 2 (May 1990):147–65.

Abramson,PaulR.,andStevenD.Pinkerton.SexualNature,SexualCulture. Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995.

———.With Pleasure: Thoughts on the Nature of HumanSexuality.Rev.ed.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.

Adams, Christine “A Choice Not to Wed? Unmarried Women inEighteenth-Century France.”JournalofSocialHistory29,no.4(Summer1996):883–94.

Adams, Mary Louise.The Trouble with Normal: Postwar YouthandtheMakingofHeterosexuality.StudiesinGenderandHistorySeries7.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1997.

Adams,MichaelC.C.TheGreatAdventure:MaleDesire and theComingofWorldWarI. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1990.

Adkins, Lisa, and Vicki Merchant.Sexualizing the Social: PowerandtheOrganizationofSexuality.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1996.

Albertine,Susan.“Heart’sExpression:TheMiddle-ClassLanguageofLove inLateNineteenth-CenturyCorrespondence.”AmericanLiteraryHistory4,no.1(Spring1992):141–64.

Albright,JulieM.“SexinAmericaOnline:AnExplorationofSex,MaritalStatus,andSexualIdentityinInternetSexSeekingandItsImpacts.”JournalofSexResearch45,no.2(May2008):175–86.

Altman, Dennis.The Homosexualization of America. Boston:BeaconPress,1983.

216

American Psychological Association. “Sexual Orientation andHomosexuality.” APA HelpCenter online.http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31.

Anderson,Eric. “ ‘BeingMasculine IsNot aboutWhoYouSleepWith...’:HeterosexualAthletesContestingMasculinityandtheOne-Time Rule of Homosexuality.”Sex Roles 58, nos. 1–2(January2008):104–15.

Anderson, Marty. “Is Heterosexuality ‘Natural’?”Ladder (July1969):4–7.

Astell, Mary. “Reflections upon Marriage.” InAstell: PoliticalWritings, edited by Patricia Springborg, 18. Cambridge, UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996.

Atkinson, Ti-Grace.Amazon Odyssey. New York: Links Books,1974.

Bach,RebeccaAnn.ShakespeareandRenaissanceLiteraturebeforeHeterosexuality.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2007.

Badgett,Lee,andJeffFrank.SexualOrientationDiscrimination:AnInternationalPerspective.NewYork:Routledge,2007.

Bailey, Beth.From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship inTwentieth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversityPress,1988.

———. “Prescribing the Pill: Politics, Culture, and the SexualRevolutioninAmerica’sHeartland.” JournalofSocialHistory30(1997):827–56.

Banks, Amy, and Nanette K. Gartrell. “Hormones and SexualOrientation:AQuestionableLink.” JournalofHomosexuality28,nos.3/4(June1995):247–68.

Banner, Lois W.In Full Flower: Aging Women, Power, andSexuality,AHistory.NewYork:Knopf,1992.Barash,DavidP.Gender Gap: The Biology of Male-Female Differences. NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,2002.

Barlow,D.H.,andJenniferC.Jones.“Self-ReportedFrequencyofSexual Urges, Fantasies, and Masturbatory Fantasies inHeterosexual Males and Females.”Archives of Sexual Behavior19,no.3(June1990):269–79.

217

Bayer, Ronald.Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: ThePoliticsofDiagnosis.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987.

Beard, Daniel Carter.Hardly a Man Is Now Alive. New York:Doubleday,Doran&Company,1939.

Bederman, Gail.Manliness andCivilization:ACulturalHistoryofGender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917. Women inCultureandSociety.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995.

Beemyn, Brett, andMichael J. Eliason.Queer Studies: A Lesbian,Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology. New York: NewYorkUniversityPress,1996.

Bell, David, and Gill Valentine.Mapping Desire: Geographies ofSexualities.London:Routledge,1995.

Bem,SandraL.“DismantlingGenderPolarizationandCompulsoryHeterosexuality: Should We Turn the Volume Down or Up?”JournalofSexResearch32,no.4(1995):329–34.

Berglund,Hans,PerLindström,andIvankaSavic.“BrainResponsetoPutativePheromones inLesbianWomen.”Proceedingsof theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of America103,no.21(May23,2006):8269–74.

Berend,Zsuzsa.“‘TheBestorNone!’SpinsterhoodinNineteenth-Century New England.”Journal of Social History 33, no. 4(Summer2000):935–57.

Berlant, Lauren Gail.The Female Complaint: The UnfinishedBusiness of Sentimentality in American Culture. Durham, NC:DukeUniversityPress,2008.

———.TheQueenofAmericaGoestoWashingtonCity:EssaysonSexandCitizenship.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1997.

Biblarz,Timothy J., and JudithStacey. “HowDoes theGender ofParentsMatter?”Journal ofMarriageandFamily 72 (February2010):3–22.

Birken, Lawrence.Consuming Desire: Sexual Science and theEmergenceofaCultureofAbundance,1871–1914. Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1988.

Blanchard,Ray.“Older-SiblingandYounger-SiblingSexRatios in

218

FrischandHviid’s(2006)NationalCohortStudyofTwoMillionDanes.”ArchivesofSexualBehavior36(2007):860–63.

Bland, Lucy, Laura Doan, eds..Sexology in Culture: LabellingBodiesandDesires.Oxford,UK:PolityPress,1998.

Blank, Hanne.Virgin: The Untouched History. New York:Bloomsbury,2007.

Blinn-Pike,Lynn. “WhyAbstinentAdolescentsReportTheyHaveNotHadSex:Understanding SexuallyResilientYouth.”FamilyRelations48,no.3(July1999):295–301.

Bloch, Ruth Howard. “Changing Conceptions of Sexuality andRomance in Eighteenth-Century America.” Sexuality in EarlyAmerica, third series.William and Mary Quarterly 60, no. 1(January2003):13–42.

———.MedievalMisogynyandtheInventionofWesternRomanticLove.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.

Blumberg, Eric S. “The Lives and Voices of Highly SexualWomen.”JournalofSexResearch40,no.2(May2003):146–57.

Blumin, Stuart M.The Emergence of the Middle Class: SocialExperience in theAmerican City, 1760–1900. InterdisciplinaryPerspectives on Modern History. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversityPress,1989.

Bogaert, Anthony F. “Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in aNationalProbabilitySample.”JournalofSexResearch 37,no.4(November2000):361–68.

Bogaert, Anthony F., Lesley E. Crosthwait, Ray Blanchard.“InteractionofBirthOrder,Handedness,andSexualOrientationintheKinseyInterviewData.”BehavioralNeuroscience121,no.5(2007):845–53.

Bogart, Laura M., et al. “Is It ‘Sex’? College Students’InterpretationsofSexualBehaviorTerminology.” Journal of SexResearch37,no.2(May2000):108–16.

Boswell, John. “Toward the Long View: Revolutions, Universals,and Sexual Categories.”Salmagundi 58–59 (Fall–Winter 1982–1983):89–113.

Bouma,BeverlyAnn.“ComingOutStraight:RoleExitandSexual

219

Identity(Re)Formation.”Thesis.UniversityofVictoria(Canada),2007.

Bourdieu, Pierre.Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated byRichard Nice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977(orig.published1972).

Boyarin,Daniel.UnheroicConduct:TheRiseofHeterosexualityandthe Invention of the Jewish Man. Berkeley: University ofCaliforniaPress,1997.

Breslow, Norman, Linda Evans, and Jill Langley. “ComparisonsAmong Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual Male Sado-Masochists.”JournalofHomosexuality13,no.1(August1986):83–107.

Brill,A.A.“TheIntroductionandDevelopmentofFreud’sWorkinthe United States.”American Journal of Sociology 45, no. 3(November1939):318–25.

Brooks, Kelly. “Sexual Identity Construction among Lesbian,Bisexual,andUnlabeledWomen.”PhDdiss,UniversityofRhodeIsland,2006.

Brown, Robert C. “The Action for Alienation of Affections.”University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American LawRegister82,no.5(March1934):472–506.

Browning, James R., Debra Kessler, Elaine Hatfield, and PatriciaChoo. “Power, Gender, and Sexual Behavior.”Journal of SexResearch36,no.4(November1999):342–47.

Brozyna, Martha A.Gender and Sexuality in the Middle Ages: AMedievalSourceDocumentsReader. Jefferson,NC:McFarland,2005.

Buchbinder, Howard.Who’s on Top? The Politics ofHeterosexuality.Toronto:Garamond,1987.

Bullough, Bonnie, and Vern Bullough. “Are TransvestitesNecessarilyHeterosexual?”ArchivesofSexualBehavior 26,no.1(1997):1–12.

Bullough, Vern. “Homosexuality and the Secret Sin in NineteenthCenturyAmerica.”JournaloftheHistoryofMedicine28(1973):143–54.

220

Bullough, Vern L. Science in the Bedroom: A History of SexResearch.NewYork:BasicBooks,1994.

———.“SexandtheMedicalModel.”JournalofSexResearch 11,no.4(November1975):291–303.

Bunch,Charlotte.PassionatePolitics:Essays,1968–1986:FeministTheoryinAction.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1987.

Burger, Glen, and Steven F. Kruger.Queering the Middle Ages.Medieval Cultures 27. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress,2001.

Bush, M. L.What Is Love? Richard Carlile’s Philosophy of Sex.London:Verso,1998.

Buss, David M.The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of HumanMating.Rev.ed.NewYork:BasicBooks,2003.

Butler, Jack. “Before Sexual Difference: TheArt and Science ofGenitalEmbryogenesis.”Leonardo26,no.3(1993):193–200.

Butler, Judith.Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of“Sex.”Oxford,UK:Routledge,1993.

———.UndoingGender.NewYork:Routledge,2004.Cacchione, Thea. “Heterosexuality and ‘the Labour of Love’: A

Contribution toRecentDebatesonFemaleSexualDysfunction.”Sexualities10,no.3(July2007):299–320.

Call,Vaughn,SusanSprecher,andPepperSchwartz.“TheIncidenceandFrequencyofMaritalSexinaNationalSample.”Journal ofMarriageandFamily57,no.3(August1995):639–52.

Campbell, Colin.The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of ModernConsumerism.Oxford,UK:B.Blackwell,1987.

Cantarella, Eva.Bisexuality in theAncientWorld. NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1992.

Caplan, Patricia.The Cultural Construction of Sexuality. London:Tavistock,1987.

Carter, Julian B.The Heart of Whiteness: Normal Sexuality andRace in America, 1880–1940. Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress,2007.

Carver,PriscillaR.,DavidG.Perry,andSusanK.Egan.“ChildrenWhoQuestionTheirHeterosexuality.”DevelopmentalPsychology

221

40,no.1(January2004):43–53.Case,MaryAnneC.“DisaggregatingGenderfromSexandSexual

Orientation: The Effeminate Man in the Law and FeministJurisprudence.”YaleLawJournal105,no.1(October1995):1–105.

Case,SueEllen,PhilipBrett,andSusanLeighFoster.CruisingthePerformative: Interventions into the Representation of Ethnicity,Nationality, andSexuality. UnnaturalActs Series. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1995.

Cate,RodneyM., and JamesE.Koval. “HeterosexualRelationshipDevelopment:IsItReallyaSequentialProcess?”Adolescence18(Fall1983):507–14.

Cavender,Anthony, and Steve Crowder. “White-Livered Widdersand Bad-Blooded Men: Folk Illness and Sexual Disorder inSouthernAppalachia.”JournaloftheHistoryofSexuality11,no.4(October2002):637–49.

Chambers,WendyC.“OralSex:VariedBehaviorsandPerceptionsin a College Population.”Journal of Sex Research 44, no. 1(February2007):28–42.

Chauncey, George. “From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality:Medicine and the Changing Conceptualization of FemaleDeviance.”Salmagundi56–59(Fall–Winter1983):114–46.

———.GayNewYork:Gender,UrbanCulture,andtheMakingsof the GayMaleWorld, 1890–1940. NewYork: Basic Books,1994.

Chodorow, Nancy.Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities: FreudandBeyond.Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky,1994.

Clausen, Jan.Apples & Oranges: My Journey through SexualIdentity.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1999.

Cody, Lisa Forman.Birthing the Nation: Sex, Science, and theConceptionofEighteenth-CenturyBritons.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress,2005.

Cohen,Ed.“TheDoubleLivesofMan:NarrationandIdentificationin the Late Nineteenth-Century Representation of Ec-CentricMasculinities.”VictorianSexualities,VictorianStudies 36,no.3,

222

(Spring1993):353–76.Colapinto,John.AsNatureMadeHim:TheBoyWhoWasRaisedasaGirl.NewYork:HarperCollins,2000.Coleman,Eli.“BisexualWomen in Marriages.”Journal of Homosexuality 11, nos. 1/2(Spring1985):87–99.

Coleman,Eli,LouisGooren,andMichaelRoss.“TheoriesofGenderTranspositions: A Critique and Suggestions for FurtherResearch.”JournalofSexResearch 26,no.4(November1989):525–38.

Coleman, Emily M., Peter W. Hoon, and Emily F. Hoon.“Arousability and Sexual Satisfaction in Lesbian andHeterosexual Women.”Journal of Sex Research 19, no. 1(February1983):58–73.

Collier, Richard.Masculinities, Crime and Criminology: Men,Heterosexuality and the Criminal(ised) Other. Thousand Oaks,CA:SagePublications,1998.

Collins, Marcus.Modern Love: Personal Relationships inTwentieth-Century Britain. Newark: University of DelawarePress,2006.

Cook,Hera.TheLongSexualRevolution:EnglishWomen,Sex,andContraception,1800–1975.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2004.

Coontz, Stephanie.Marriage, a History: From Obedience toIntimacy,orHowLoveConqueredMarriage. NewYork:VikingPenguin,2006.

Cornell,Drucilla.“TheShadowofHeterosexuality.”Hypatia22,no.1(Winter2007):229–42.

Cossman, Brenda.Sexual Citizens: The Legal and CulturalRegulation of Sex and Belonging. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversityPress,2007.

Costello, John.Love, Sex, and War: Changing Values, 1939–45.London:Collins,1985.

Cott, Nancy F. “Passionlessness: An Interpretation of VictorianSexualIdeology.”Signs4,no.2(Winter1978):219–36.

Cotton,John.AMeetHelp.Boston:B.Green&J.Allen,1699.

223

Coward, Rosalind.Patriarchal Precedents: Sexuality and SocialRelations.London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1983.

Curtis, Bruce, and Alan Hunt. “The Fellatio ‘Epidemic’: AgeRelations andAccess to the EroticArts.” Sexualities 10, no. 1(February2007):5–28.

Darby, Robert. “TheMasturbation Taboo and the Rise of RoutineMale Circumcision: A Review of Historiography.” Journal ofSocialHistory36,no.3(2003):737–57.

Darwin, Charles.On the Origin of Species by Means of NaturalSelection,orthePreservationofFavouredRacesintheStruggleforLife.London:GrantRichards,1902.

Davidson, Arnold Ira.The Emergence of Sexuality: HistoricalEpistemologyand theFormationofConcepts. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2001.

Davidson, Roger, and Lesley A. Hall.Sex, Sin and Suffering:VenerealDiseaseandEuropeanSocietySince1870. LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2001.

Davis, Katharine Bement.Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-TwoHundredWomen.NewYork:Harper&Brothers,1929.

Dean,CarolynJ.SexualityandModernWesternCulture. Twayne’sStudies in Intellectual andCulturalHistory.NewYork:TwaynePublishers,1996.

De Cecco, John P. “Homosexuality’s Brief Recovery: FromSicknesstoHealthandBackAgain.”JournalofSexResearch23,no.1(February1987):106–14.

De Cecco, John P., and David Allen Parker. “The Biology ofHomosexuality: Sexual Orientation or Sexual Preference?”JournalofHomosexuality28,nos.1/2(June1995):1–28.

Degler, Carl. “What Ought To Be and What Was: Women’sSexualityintheNineteenthCentury.”AmericanHistoricalReview79(1974):1480–90.

DeLora, Joann S., and Jack R. DeLora.Intimate Life Styles:Marriageand ItsAlternatives. Pacific Palisades, CA:GoodyearPublishingCo.,1972.

D’Emilio, John,andEstelleFreedman.IntimateMatters:AHistory

224

ofSexualityinAmerica.NewYork:Harper&Row,1988.Demos, John, and Virginia Demos. “Adolescence in Historical

Perspective.”Journal of Marriage and Family 31, no. 4(November1969):632–38.

deRooij,SusanneR.,etal.“SexualOrientationandGenderIdentityAfterPrenatalExposuretotheDutchFamine.”ArchivesofSexualBehavior38(2009):411–16.

Deutsch,Helen.ThePsychologyofWomen. NewYork:GrueneandStratton,1944.

Devor, Holly. “Sexual Orientation Identities, Attractions, andPractices of Female-to-Male Transsexuals.”Journal of SexResearch30,no.4(November1993):303–15.

Diamant,Louis,andRichardD.McAnulty,eds.ThePsychologyofSexual Orientation, Behavior, and Identity: A Handbook.Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress,1995.

Diamond, Jared M.Why Is Sex Fun? The Evolution of HumanSexuality.NewYork:HarperCollins,1997.

Diamond,LisaM.“EmergingPerspectivesonDistinctionsBetweenRomantic Love and Sexual Desire.”Current Directions inPsychologicalScience13,no.3(2004):116–19.

———.SexualFluidity:UnderstandingWomen’sLoveandDesire.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2008.

———. “What Does Sexual Orientation Orient?A BiobehavioralModel Distinguishing Romantic Love and Sexual Desire.”PsychologicalReview110,no.1(2003):173–92.

Diamond,Milton.“ACriticalEvaluationoftheOntogenyofHumanSexual Behavior.”QuarterlyReview of Biology 40, no. 2 (June1965):147–75.

———. “Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation in Children withTraumatized orAmbiguous Genitalia.”Journal of Sex Research34,no.2(1997):199–211.

Doan, Laura L.Fashioning Sapphism: The Origins of a ModernEnglishLesbianCulture. BetweenMen—BetweenWomen.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2001.

Doll,LyndaS.,etal.“TheBloodDonorStudyGroupHomosexually

225

andNonhomosexuallyIdentifiedMenWhoHaveSexwithMen:A Behavioral Comparison.”Journal of Sex Research 29, no. 1(February1992):1–14.

Douglas, Carol Anne.Love and Politics: Radical Feminist andLesbianTheories.SanFrancisco:IsmPress,1990.

Dowbiggin, Ian.Inheriting Madness: Professionalization andPsychiatric Knowledge in NineteenthCentury France.MedicineandSociety4.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1991.

Dowd,JamesJ.,andNicoleR.Pallotta.“TheEndofRomance:TheDemystification of Love in the PostmodernAge.”SociologicalPerspectives43,no.4(Winter2000):549–80.

Drage, Geoffrey.The Criminal Code of the German Empire.London:ChapmanandHall,1885.

Drescher, Jack, and Kenneth J. Zucker, eds.Ex-Gay Research:AnalyzingtheSpitzerStudyandItsRelationtoScience,Religion,Politics,andCulture.NewYork:HarringtonParkPress,2006.

Druckerman, Pamela.Lust in Translation: The Rules of InfidelityfromTokyotoTennessee.NewYork:PenguinPress,2007.

Dubé, EricM. “The Role of Sexual Behavior in the IdentificationProcessofGayandBisexualMales.”JournalofSexResearch37,no.2(May2000):123–32.

Dubinsky, Karen.Improper Advances: Rape and HeterosexualConflict in Ontario, 1880–1929. Chicago Series on Sexuality,History, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1993.

Duggan, Lisa. “From Instincts to Politics: Writing the History ofSexuality in the U.S.”Journal of Sex Research 27, no. 1(February1990):95–109.

Dyhouse,Carol.FeminismandtheFamilyinEngland,1880–1939.Oxford,UK:BasilBlackwell,1989.

Earle,JohnR.,andPhilipJ.Perricone.“PremaritalSexuality:ATen-Year Study of Attitudes and Behavior on a Small UniversityCampus.”JournalofSexResearch22,no.3(August1986):304–10.

Echols, Alice.Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America,

226

1967–1975.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1989.Edwards,Jonathan.SomeThoughtsConcerningthePresentRevivalofReligion.Boston,1742.

Ehrenreich, Barbara.Re-Making Love: The Feminization of Sex.GardenCity,NY:AnchorPress/Doubleday,1986.

Ellis, Havelock.AnalysisoftheSexualImpulse,LoveandPain,theSexualImpulseinWomen. Vol. III, StudiesinthePsychologyofSex.Philadelphia:F.A.DavisCompany,1903.

———.The Evolution of Modesty, the Phenomena of SexualPeriodicity, Auto-Erotism. 3rd ed. Vol. I, Studies in thePsychologyofSex.Philadelphia:F.A.DavisCompany,1920.

———.Little Essays of Love and Virtue. New York: George H.Doran,1922.

———. “The Psychic State in Pregnancy” (1906). InEroticSymbolism,theMechanismofDetumescence,thePsychicStateinPregnancy.Vol.V,StudiesinthePsychologyofSex,byHavelockEllis.Philadelphia:F.A.DavisCompany,1912.

———.Sex in Relation to Society. Vol. VI, Studies in thePsychologyofSex.Philadelphia:F.A.DavisCompany,1910.

Ellis,Lee,etal.“EyeColor,HairColor,BloodType,andtheRhesusFactor:ExploringPossibleGeneticLinkstoSexualOrientation.”ArchivesofSexualBehavior37(2008):145–49.

Ellmann,Richard.OscarWilde.NewYork:Knopf,1988.Epstein, Debbie, and Deborah Lynn Steinberg. “All Het Up!

Rescuing Heterosexuality on the ‘Oprah Winfrey Show.’”FeministReview54(Autumn1996):88–115.

Epstein, Debbie, Richard Johnson, Deborah Lynn Steinberg, andPolitics of Sexuality Group.Border Patrols: Policing theBoundariesofHeterosexuality.London:Cassell,1997.

Epstein,Julia,andKristinaStraub,eds.BodyGuards:TheCulturalPoliticsofGenderAmbiguity.NewYork:Routledge,1991.

Escoffier, Jeffrey. “Gay-for-Pay: StraightMen and theMaking ofGay Pornography.”Qualitative Sociology 26, no. 4 (Winter2003):531–55.

Estep, Rhoda E., Martha R. Burt, and Herman J. Milligan. “The

227

SocializationofSexualIdentity.”JournalofMarriageandFamily39,no.1(February1977):99–112.

Etorre, Betsy. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Psych/Atrophy:SomeThoughtsonLesbianFeministTheory.”Women’s StudiesInternationalForum8,no.5(1985):421–28.

Eustace,Nicole.“‘TheCornerstoneofaCopiousWork’:LoveandPower in Eighteenth-century Courtship.”Journal of SocialHistory34,no.3(Spring2001):517–46.

Faderman, Lillian.Surpassing the Love of Men: RomanticFriendship andLoveBetweenWomen, from theRenaissance tothePresent.NewYork:Morrow,1981.

Falomir-Pichastor,JuanM.,andGabrielMugny.“‘I’mnotgay....I’m a real man!’: HeterosexualMen’s Gender Self-Esteem andSexualPrejudice.”PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin35,no.9(2009):1233–43.

Farnham,Marynia,andFerdinandLundberg.ModernWoman:TheLostSex.NewYork:Harper&Brothers,1947.

Farrar,ElizaW.[writingasALady]. TheYoungLady’sFriend:AManualofPracticalAdviceandInstructiontoYoungFemalesonEnteringupon theDutiesofLifeafterQuittingSchool. London:JohnW.Parker,1837.

Farvid,Panteá,andVirginiaBraun.“‘MostofUsGuysAreRaringto Go Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere’: Male and FemaleSexuality inCleo andCosmo.” Sex Roles 55, nos. 5/6 (2006):295–310.

Fass, Paula S.TheDamned and the Beautiful: American Youth inthe1920’s.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1977.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne, et al. “Genetics and Male SexualOrientation.” New series,Science 261, no. 5126 (September 3,1993):1257–59.

Fellman,AnitaClair,andMichaelFellman.“TheRuleofModerationinLateNineteenth-CenturyAmericanSexual Ideology.” JournalofSexResearch17,no.3(1981):238–55.

Filene, Peter G.Him/Her/Self: Gender Identities in ModernAmerica. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

228

1998.Finger, FrankW. “Changes in Sex Practices and Beliefs of Male

College Students Over 30 Years.” Journal of Sex Research 11,no.4(November1975):304–17.

Fisher, Helen E.Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry ofRomanticLove.NewYork:HenryHoltandCompany,2004.

Fisher, Kate.Birth Control, Sex and Marriage in Britain, 1918–1960.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress,2006.

Flood, Michael. “Men, Sex, and Homosociality.”Men &Masculinities10,no.3(April2008):339–59.

Forgas, JosephP.,andBarbaraDobosz.“DimensionsofRomanticInvolvement: Towards a Taxonomy of HeterosexualRelationships.”SocialPsychologyQuarterly43,no.3(September1980):290–300.

Foster,ThomasA., ed.LongBeforeStonewall:HistoriesofSame-SexSexualityinEarlyAmerica.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2007.

Foucault, Michel.The History of Sexuality. New York: PantheonBooks,1978.

Fout, John C., and Maura Shaw Tantillo, eds.American SexualPolitics: Sex, Gender, and Race since the Civil War. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1993.

Fox,RonaldC.CurrentResearchonBisexuality. Binghamton,NY:HarringtonParkPress,2004.

France, David. “The Science of Gaydar—New Research onEverythingfromVoicePitchtoHairWhorl.”NewYork,June17,2007.

Francoeur,RobertT.,PatriciaBarthalowKock,andDavidL.Weis.Sexuality in America: Understanding Our Sexual Values andBehavior.NewYork:Continuum,1998.

Freedman, Estelle B. “The Prison Lesbian: Race, Class, and theConstruction of the Aggressive Female Homosexual, 1915–1965.”FeministStudies22,no.2(Summer1996):397–423.

———. “Sexuality in Nineteenth-century America: Behavior,Ideology, and Politics.”Reviews inAmericanHistory 10, no. 4

229

(December1982):196–215.———. “ ‘Uncontrolled Desires’: The Response to the Sexual

Psychopath,1920–1960.”JournalofAmericanHistory74,no.1(June1987):83–106.

Freud,Sigmund.ACaseofHysteria,ThreeEssaysonSexualityandOtherWorks. Vol. VII,The Standard Edition of the CompleteWorks of Sigmund Freud. Translated and edited by JamesStrachey.London:HogarthPress,1954.

Friedan, Betty.TheFeminineMystique.NewYork:W.W.Norton,1997.

Frost,GingerS.PromisesBroken:Courtship,Class,andGenderinVictorianEngland.VictorianLiteratureandCultureSeries.Editedby Karen Chase, Jerome J. McGann, and Herbert Tucker.Charlottesville:UniversityPressofVirginia,1995.

Froyum,CarissaM.“‘AtLeastI’mNotGay’:HeterosexualIdentityMaking among Poor Black Teens.”Sexualities 10, no. 5(December2007):603–22.

Frye,Marilyn.“Lesbian ‘Sex’” InFeministPhilosophies, editedbyJanetKourany, JamesSterba, andRosemarieTong, 72–77. 2nded.NewYork:PrenticeHall,1999.

Gallup, Gordon G., and S. D. Suarez. “Homosexuality as a By-Product of Selection for Optimal Heterosexual Strategies.”Perspectives in Biology andMedicine 26, no. 2 (Winter 1983):315–22.

Gardella, Peter.InnocentEcstasy:HowChristianityGaveAmericaanEthicofSexualPleasure.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1985.

Garton, Stephen.Histories of Sexuality. New York: Routledge,2004.

Gartrell, Nanette, and Henny Bos. “US National LongitudinalLesbianFamilyStudy:PsychologicalAdjustmentof17-Year-OldAdolescents.”Pediatrics. Published online June 7, 2010. DOI:10.1542/peds.2009–3153.AccessedJune10,2010.

Gay, Peter.Education of the Senses. Vol. 1,The BourgeoisExperience: Victoria to Freud. New York: Oxford University

230

Press,1984.———.The Tender Passion. Vol. 2,The Bourgeois Experience:Victoria to Freud. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Geddes, Patrick, and J.Arthur Thomson.TheEvolution of Sex.London:W.Scott,1889.

Gerhard,Jane.“Revisiting‘TheMythoftheVaginalOrgasm’:TheFemaleOrgasm inAmericanSexualThought andSecondWaveFeminism.”WomenandHealthissue,FeministStudies26,no.2(Summer2000):449–76.

Giddens,Anthony.TheTransformationofIntimacy:Sexuality,Loveand Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversityPress,1992.

Gilbert,Margaret. “ModelingCollectiveBelief.”Synthese73,no.1(1987):185–204.

———.OnSocialFacts.London:Routledge,1989.Gillis,JohnR.AWorldofTheirOwnMaking:Myth,Ritual,andtheQuestforFamilyValues.NewYork:BasicBooks,1996.

———.YouthandHistory:TraditionandChangeinEuropeanAgeRelations,1770 –Present. Studies in Social Discontinuity. NewYork:AcademicPress,1974.

Gillis, Jonathan. “Bad Habits and Pernicious Results: ThumbSucking and the Discipline of Late-Nineteenth-CenturyPediatrics.”MedicalHistory40(1996):55–73.

Gillmore, M. R., et al. “Comparison of Daily and RetrospectiveReports ofVaginal Sex in Heterosexual Men and Women.”JournalofSexResearch47,no.4(2009).

Gilman, Sander L.The Case of Sigmund Freud: Medicine andIdentityattheFinDeSiècle.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1993.

———.Difference and Pathology: Stereotypes of Sexuality, Race,andMadness.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1985.

Gladue, Brian A. “The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation.”Current Directions in Psychological Science 3, no. 5 (October1994):150–54.

Glenn, Norval D., and Charles N. Weaver. “Attitudes Toward

231

Premarital,Extramarital,andHomosexualRelationsintheU.S.inthe1970s.”JournalofSexResearch 15,no.2(May1979):108–18.

Goldberg, Richard L. “Heterosexual Panic.”American Journal ofPsychoanalysis44,no.2(Summer1984):209–11.

Goodwin, Paula, et al. “Who Marries and When? Age at FirstMarriage in theUnited States, 2002.”NCHS data brief, no 19.Hyattsville,MD:NationalCenterforHealthStatistics,2009.

Gooren,LouisJ.G.“BiomedicalConceptsofHomosexuality:FolkBelief in aWhite Coat.”Journal ofHomosexuality 28, nos. 3/4(June1995):237–46.

Green, Katherine S. “The Heroine’s Blazon and Hardwicke’sMarriage Act: Commodification for a Novel Market.”TulsaStudiesinWomen’sLiterature9,no.2(Autumn1990):273–90.

Greenberg,DavidF.TheConstructionofHomosexuality. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988.

Greenspan, Ralph J., and Jean-Francois Ferveur. “Courtship inDrosophila.”AnnualReviewofGenetics34(2000):205–32.

Grello, CatherineM., Deborah P.Welsh, andMelinda S. Harper.“No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual Sex in CollegeStudents.”JournalofSexResearch43,no.3(2006):255–67.

Gross, Alan E. “The Male Role and Heterosexual Behavior.”JournalofSocialIssues34,no.1(Winter1978):87–107.

Haag,PamelaS.“InSearchof‘TheRealThing’:IdeologiesofLove,Modern Romance, and Women’s Sexual Subjectivity in theUnited States, 1920– 40.”Journalof theHistoryofSexuality 2,no.4(April1992):547–77.

Hacking, Ian.“How‘Natural’Are ‘Kinds’ofSexualOrientation?”LawandPhilosophy21,no.1(January2002):95–107.

Haley,Bruce.TheHealthyBodyandVictorianCulture. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1978.

Hall,AmyLaura.ConceivingParenthood:AmericanProtestantismand the Spirit of Reproduction. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B.Eerdmans,2008.

Hall, Donald E., and Maria T. Pramaggiore, eds.RePresenting

232

Bisexualities:SubjectsandCulturesofFluidDesire. NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1996.

Hall, G. Stanley.Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations toPhysiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, andEducation.Vol.2.NewYork:Appleton,1904.

Hall, Lesley A.Hidden Anxieties: Male Sexuality, 1900–1950.FamilyLifeSeries.Oxford,UK:PolityPress,1991.

———.OutspokenWomen:AnAnthologyofWomen’sWritingonSex,1870–1969.London:Routledge,2005.

———.Sex, Gender and Social Change in Britain since 1880.European Culture and Society Series. Basingstoke, UK:Macmillan,2000.

Hall, Lynn S. “Dermatoglyphic Analysis of Total Finger RidgeCount in Female Monozygotic Twins Discordant for SexualOrientation.”Journal of Sex Research 37, no. 4 (November2000):315–20.

Halley,JanetE.“TheConstructionofHeterosexuality.”InFearofaQueer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, edited byMichael Warner. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1993.

———. “Reasoning about Sodomy:Act and Identity in and afterBowers v.Hardwick. ”Virginia Law Review 79, no. 7 (October1993):1721–80.

———.“SexualOrientationandthePoliticsofBiology:ACritiqueof theArgument from Immutability.” Stanford Law Review 46,no.3(February1994):503–68.

Halperin,DavidM.“IsThereaHistoryofSexuality?”HistoryandTheory28,no.3(October1989):257–74.

Halperin,DavidM., John J.Winkler, and Froma I. Zeitlin.BeforeSexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the AncientGreekWorld.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990.

Hamer, Dean H.The Science of Desire: The Search for the GayGeneandtheBiologyofBehavior.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1994.

Hamilton, Cicely.MarriageasaTrade. NewYork:Moffat,Yard

233

andCompany,1909.Hanchett, Henry G.SexualHealth. 2nd ed.NewYork:Böricke&

Tafel,1889.Hanigan, James.Heterosexuality: The Test Case for ChristianSexualEthics.NewYork:Paulist,1988.

Hanscombe, Gillian, Diana Chapman, and Martin Humphries.Heterosexuality.London:GMP,1987.

Harding,Jennifer.SexActs:PracticesofFemininityandMasculinity.London:SAGEPublications,1998.

Harth,Erica.“TheVirtueofLove:LordHardwicke’sMarriageAct.”CulturalCritique9(Spring1988):123–54.

Hartmann, Uwe. “Sigmund Freud and His Impact on OurUnderstanding of Male Sexual Dysfunction.”Journal of SexMedicine6,no.8(August2009):2332–39.

Hatfield, Elaine, and Richard L. Rapsen.Love and Sex: Cross-CulturalPerspectives.Boston:AllynandBacon,1996.

Haumann, Gunter. “Homosexuality, Biology, and Ideology.”JournalofHomosexuality28,no.1(1995):57–77.

Haynes, James D. “A Critique of the Possibility of GeneticInheritance of Homosexual Orientation.”Journal ofHomosexuality28,nos.1/2(June1995):91–114.

Heidenry,John.WhatWildEcstasy:TheRiseandFalloftheSexualRevolution.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1997.

Hekma,Gert.“‘AFemaleSoulinaMaleBody’:SexualInversionas Gender Inversion in Nineteenth-century Sexology.” InThirdSex, ThirdGender:Beyond SexualDimorphism inCulture andHistory,editedbyGilbertHerdt.NewYork:ZoneBooks,1994.

———.Homosexualiteit,eenMedischeReputatie:DeUitdokteringvan de Homosexueel in Negentiende-Eeuws. Nederland: SUA,1987.

Heller, Thomas C., and Christine Brook-Rose.ReconstructingIndividualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self inWesternThought.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1986.

Hendrick,Harry.ImagesofYouth:Age,Class,andtheMaleYouthProblem,1880–1920.Oxford,UK:ClarendonPress,1990.

234

Herdt, Gilbert H.Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond SexualDimorphism in Culture and History. New York: Zone Books,1994.

Henig, RobinMarantz.Pandora’sBaby:How theFirst Test TubeBabies Sparked theReproductiveRevolution. Boston: HoughtonMifflin,2004.

Herrn, Rainer. “On the History of Biological Theories ofHomosexuality.”Journal of Homosexuality 28, nos. 1–2 (June1995):31–56.

Herzer, Manfred. “Kertbeny and the Nameless Love.”Journal ofHomosexuality12,no.1(1985):1–25.

Herzer,Manfred,andJean-ClaudeFeray.“HomosexualStudiesandPolitics in the Nineteenth Century: Karl Maria Kertbeny.”Translated by Glen Peppel.Journal ofHomosexuality 19, no. 1(1990):23–47.

Hill,Bridget.WomenAlone:SpinstersinEngland,1660–1850.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2001.

Hill, Darryl B. “ ‘Feminine’ Heterosexual Men: SubvertingHeteropatriarchal Sexual Scripts?”Journal ofMen’s Studies 14,no.2(Spring2006):145–59.

Hitchcock, Tim.English Sexualities, 1700–1800. Social History inPerspectiveSeries.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1997.

———.“ReadingSexintheEighteenthCentury:BodiesandGenderinEnglishEroticCulture.”JournaloftheHistoryofSexuality15,no.1(January2006):139–43.

———. “Redefining Sex in Eighteenth-century England.”HistoryWorkshopJournal41(Spring1996):72–90.

Hite, Shere.TheShereHiteReader:NewandSelectedWritingsonSex, Globalization, and Private Life. NewYork: Seven StoriesPress,2006.

Hockey, Jennifer Lorna.MundaneHeterosexualities:FromTheorytoPractices.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2007.

Holland, Janet, andLisaAdkins.Sex,Sensibilityand theGenderedBody.London:Macmillan,1996.

Hollick, Frederick.The Marriage Guide or Natural History of

235

Generations.NewYork,1885.Holmberg, Diane, and Karen L. Blair. “Sexual Desire,

Communication, Satisfaction, and Preferences of Men andWomeninSame-SexVersusMixed-SexRelationships.” JournalofSexResearch46,no.1(2009):57–66.

Holtzman,Ellen.“ThePursuitofMarriedLove:Women’sAttitudesTowards Sexuality andMarriage in Great Britain, 1918–1939.”JournalofSocialHistory16(1982):39–52.

Huet,Pierre-Daniel.TheHistoryofRomances:AnEnquiryintotheirOriginal; Instructions for Composing them; an Account of themost Eminent Authors; with Characters, and CuriousObservations upon the Best Performances of that Kind.TranslatedbyStephenLewis.London:J.HookeandT.Caldecott,1715.

Hughes, Charles. “Erotopathia—Morbid Eroticism.”Alienist andNeurologist14,no.4(October1893):531–78.

Hunt, Lynn.The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and theOrigins of Modernity, 1500–1800. New York: Zone Books,1993.

Hurlbert, David Farley. “Female Sexuality:A Comparative StudyBetween Women in Homosexual and HeterosexualRelationships.”Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 19, no. 4(Winter1993):315–27.

Hutchinson, Sir Jonathan. “On Circumcision as a Preventative ofMasturbation.”ArchivesofSurgery2,no.7(January1891):267–69.

Ingraham,Chrys.“TheHeterosexualImaginary:FeministSociologyand Theories of Gender.”Sociological Theory 12, no. 2 (July1994):203–19.

———.ThinkingStraight:ThePromise,thePowerandParadoxofHeterosexality.NewYork:Routledge,2005.

———.White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in PopularCulture.NewYork:Routledge,1999.

Irvine, JaniceM.DisordersofDesire:SexandGender inModernAmerican Sexology. Health, Society, and Policy. Philadelphia:

236

TempleUniversityPress,1990.Ittmann,Karl.“FamilyLimitationandFamilyEconomyinBradford,

WestYorkshire,1851–1881.”JournalofSocialHistory25,no.3(Spring1992):547–73.

Ivory,Yvonne. “TheUrning andHisOwn: Individualism and theFin-de-Siecle Invert.”German Studies Review 26, no. 2 (May2003):333–52.

Jackson, Stevi.Heterosexuality in Question. Thousand Oaks, CA:SagePublications,1999.

———. “Ordinary Sex.”Sexualities 11, nos. 1/2 (February 2008):33–37.

———.“Sexuality,Heterosexuality,andGenderHierarchy:GettingOur Priorities Straight.” InThinking Straight: The Power, thePromise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality , edited by ChrysIngraham,26.NewYork:Routledge,2005.

Jackson, Stevi, and Sue Scott, eds.Feminism and Sexuality: AReader. Gender and Culture. New York: Columbia UniversityPress,1996.

Jacobson, Matthew Frye.Whiteness of Another Color: EuropeanImmigrantsandtheAlchemyofRace.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1998.

Jaeger,C.Stephen.EnnoblingLove:InSearchofaLostSensibility.The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvaniaPress,1999.

James, William H. “Biological and Psychosocial Determinants ofMale and Female Human Sexual Orientation.”Journal ofBiosocialScience37(2005):555–67.

Jedlicka,Davor,andIraE.Robinson.“FearofVenerealDiseaseandOther Perceived Restraints on the Occurrence of PremaritalCoitus.”JournalofSexResearch23,no.3(1987):391–96.

Joffe, Carole.The Regulation of Sexuality: Experiences of FamilyPlanning Workers. Health, Society, and Policy. Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,1986.

Johnson, Paul.Love, Heterosexuality, and Society. Advances inSociology16.London:Routledge,2005.

237

Joyce, Kathryn.Quiverfull: Inside the Christian PatriarchyMovement.Boston:BeaconPress,2009.

Kaestle,ChristineE.,andCarolynT.Halpern.“What’sLoveGottoDowith It?SexualBehaviorsofOpposite-SexCouples throughEmergingAdulthood.”Perspectives onSexual andReproductiveHealth39,no.3(September2007):134–40.

Kafer,Alison.“CompulsoryBodies:ReflectionsonHeterosexualityand Ablebodiedness.”Journal of Women’s History 15, no. 3(Autumn2003):77–89.

Karras,RuthMazo.CommonWomen:ProstitutionandSexualityinMedieval England. Studies in the History of Sexuality. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1996.

———.From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in LateMedieval Europe. The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2003.

———.Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others. NewYork:Routledge,2005.

Karras, Ruth Mazo, Joel Kaye, and E.Ann Matter.Law and theIllicitinMedievalEurope. TheMiddleAgesSeries.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2008.

Katz, Jonathan.The Invention of Heterosexuality. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2007.

Kett, JosephF.RitesofPassage:Adolescence inAmerica,1790 tothePresent.NewYork:BasicBooks,1977.

Kiernan, James. “Responsibility in Sexual Perversion.”ChicagoMedicalRecorder3(May1892):185–210.

Kimmel, Michael S.The Sexual Self: The Construction of SexualScripts.Nashville,TN:VanderbiltUniversityPress,2007.

King, Richard.ThePartyofEros:RadicalSocialThoughtand theRealm of Freedom. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress,1972.

Kinnaird,JoanK.“MaryAstellandtheConservativeContributiontoEnglishFeminism.”JournalofBritishStudies19,no.1(Autumn1979):53–75.

Kinsey,AlfredC.,WardellB.Pomeroy,andClydeE.Martin.Sexual

238

Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders,1949.

Kinsey,AlfredC.andStaffoftheInstituteforSexResearch,IndianaUniversity.SexualBehaviorintheHumanFemale.Philadelphia:W.B.Saunders,1953.

Kinsman, Gary William. “ ‘Homosexuality’ HistoricallyReconsidered Challenges Heterosexual Hegemony.”Journal ofHistoricalSociology4,no.2(October2006):91–111.

Kitzinger,Celia,andSueWilkinson.Heterosexuality:AFeminism&PsychologyReader.London:SagePublications,1993.

Klein,Fred,andTimothyJ.Wolf.TwoLivestoLead:BisexualityinMenandWomen.NewYork:HarringtonParkPress,1985.

Koedt,Anne,etal.,eds.RadicalFeminism.NewYork:QuadrangleBooks,1973.

Koven, Seth.Slumming: Sexual and Social Politics in VictorianLondon.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2004.

Krafft-Ebing, Richard von.Psychopathia Sexualis. Stuttgart,Germany:F.Enke,1890.

Kunzel, Regina G.Fallen Women, Problem Girls: UnmarriedMothersandtheProfessionalizationofBenevolence,1890–1945.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1993.

Laipson,Peter.“ ‘KisswithoutShame, forSheDesires It’:SexualForeplay in American Marital Advice Literature, 1900–1925.”JournalofSocialHistory29,no.3(Spring1996):507–25.

Langland, Elizabeth. “Nobody’s Angels: Domestic Ideology andMiddle-ClassWomenintheVictorianNovel.”PMLA107,no.2(March1992):290–304.

Langlands, Rebecca.SexualMorality inAncientRome. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006.

Lanser,SusanS.“SingularPolitics:TheRiseof theBritishNationand the Production of the Old Maid.” InSinglewomen in theEuropean Past, 1250– 1800, edited by Judith M. Bennett andAmy M. Froide, 297–324. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvaniaPress,1999.

Lantz, Herman R. “Romantic Love in the Pre-Modern Period:A

239

SociologicalCommentary.”SpecialissueontheHistoryofLove,JournalofSocialHistory15,no.3(Spring1982):349–70.

Laqueur,Thomas.MakingSex:BodyandGenderfromtheGreekstoFreud.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1994.

Leites, Edmund. “The Duty to Desire: Love, Friendship, andSexuality in Some Puritan Theories ofMarriage.” Special Issueon the History of Love,Journal of Social History 15, no. 3(Spring1982):383–408.

Leneman, Leah, andRosalindMitchison. “ClandestineMarriage intheScottishCities1660–1780.”JournalofSocialHistory26,no.4(Summer1993):845–61.

LeVay, Simon. The Sexual Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1993.

Lever, Janet, et al. “Behavior Patterns and Sexual Identity ofBisexualMales.”JournalofSexResearch 29,no.2(May1992):141–67.

Lewin,Miriam.IntheShadowofthePast:PsychologyPortraystheSexes.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1984.

Lewis, Carolyn Frances. “Coitus Perfectus: The Medicalization ofHeterosexuality in the Cold War United States.” PhD diss.UniversityofCaliforniaatSantaBarbara,2007.

Light,Alison.“‘ReturningtoManderley’:RomanceFiction,FemaleSexualityandClass.”FeministReview16(Summer1984):7–25.

Lochrie, Karma, Peggy McCracken, and James A. Schultz, eds.Constructing Medieval Sexuality. Medieval Cultures 11.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997.

Lovell, Sue. “ ‘Wanted, a Strong Girl, Able to Milk, and MakeHerselfAgreeable.’”AustralianFeministStudies23,no.56(June2008):195–211.

Lowe, Pam. “Contraception and Heterosex: An IntimateRelationship.”Sexualities8,no.1(February2005):75–92.

Luibhéid, Eithne, and Lionel Cantú.Queer Migrations: Sexuality,U.S.Citizenship,andBorderCrossings. Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2005.

Luis, Keridwen N. “Ourlands: Culture, Gender, and Intention in

240

Women’s Land Communities in the United States.” PhD diss.BrandeisUniversity,2009.

Lundblad,MichaelStanley.“TheProgressiveAnimal:EvolutionaryFictions and theDiscourse of theAmerican Jungle.” PhD diss.UniversityofVirginia,2007.

Lystra, Karen.Searching the Heart: Women, Men, and RomanticLove in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: OxfordUniversityPress,1989.

Macfarlane, Alan.Marriage and Love in England: Modes ofReproduction,1300–1840.Oxford,UK:B.Blackwell,1986.

MacKinnon,CatharineA.Women’sLives,Men’sLaws. Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2005.

MacMillan, James.Housewife or Harlot: The Place ofWomen inFrenchSociety,1870–1940.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1981.

Mandeville, Bernard.A Modest Defence of Publick Stews. 1724Series:AugustanReprintSociety.LosAngeles:WilliamAndrewsClarkMemorialLibrary,UniversityofCalifornia,1973.

Mangan,J.A.,andJamesMalvin.ManlinessandMorality:Middle-Class Masculinity in Britain and America, 1800–1940. NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1987.

Markle,Gail.“‘CanWomenHaveSexLikeaMan?’SexualScriptsinSexandtheCity.”Sexuality&Culture12,no.1(Winter2008):45–57.

Marks,LauraV. SexualChemistry:AHistoryof theContraceptivePill.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2001.

Masters, William H.Heterosexuality: The Up-to-Date,Comprehensive Book of Male-Female Love, Pleasure, Health,and Well-Being by the World’s Foremost Team of SexualResearchers-Therapists. NewYork: Harper Collins Publishers,1994.

Maurice, Frederick. “Where to Get Men.”Contemporary Review(January1902):78–86.

Maynard,Mary.(Hetero)sexualPolitics.London:Taylor&Francis,1995.

McCabe,Marita P. “Desired andExperiencedLevels of Premarital

241

AffectionandSexualIntercourseDuringDating.”JournalofSexResearch23,no.1(February1987):23.

McCaughey,Martha.TheCavemanMystique:Pop-Darwinismandthe Debates Over Sex, Violence, and Science. New York:Routledge,2008.

McCoy,BethA.“DangerousDesire:LiteratureofSexualFreedomand Sexual Violence since the Sixties.”Sexualities 10, no. 1(February2007):123–24.

McDaniel, Patricia. “Shrinking Violets and Caspar Milquetoasts:ShynessandHeterosexualityfromTheRolesoftheFiftiestoTheRules of the Nineties.”Journal of Social History 34, no. 3(Spring2001):547–68.

McFadden,Dennis,etal.“AReanalysisofFiveStudiesonSexualOrientation and theRelative Length of the 2nd and 4th Fingers(the2D:4DRatio).”ArchivesofSexualBehavior 34,no.3(June2005):341–56.

McGuire, Terry R. “Is Homosexuality Genetic?”Journal ofHomosexuality28,nos.1/2(June1995):115–46.

McIntosh,Mary.“TheHomosexualRole.”JournalofSocialHistory16,no.2(Autumn1968):182–92.

McKelvie,Melissa,andStevenR.Gold.“Hyperfemininity:FurtherDefinition of the Construct.”JournalofSexResearch 31, no. 3(1994):219–28.

McKeon, Michael. “Historicizing Patriarchy: The Emergence ofGender Difference in England, 1660–1760.”Eighteenth-CenturyStudies28,no.3(Spring1995):295–322.

McLaren,Angus.AHistoryofContraception:FromAntiquitytothePresent.Oxford,UK:Blackwell,1990.

———.Impotence: A Cultural History. Chicago: University ofChicagoPress,2007.

———.ReproductiveRituals:ThePerceptionofFertilityinEnglandfrom theSixteenth to theNineteenthCentury. London:Methuen,1984.

———.The Trials of Masculinity: Policing Sexual Boundaries,1870–1930. Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society.

242

Edited by JohnC. Fout.Chicago:University ofChicago Press,1997.

McWhirter, David P., StephanieA. Sanders, and June MachoverReinisch, eds.Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts ofSexualOrientation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1990.

Meah,Angela,JennyHockey,andVictoriaRobinson.“What’sSexGottoDowithIt?AFamily-BasedInvestigationofGrowingUpHeterosexualduringtheTwentiethCentury.” SociologicalReview56,no.3(2008):454–73.

Menasche,AnnE.LeavingtheLife:Lesbians,Ex-LesbiansandtheHeterosexualImperative.London:Onlywomen,1999.

Mercer,Calvin,andThomasW.Durham.“ReligiousMysticismandGender Orientation.”Journal for theScientific StudyofReligion38,no.1(March1999):175–82.

Mikulincer, Mario, and Gail S. Goodman, eds.Dynamics ofRomantic Love: Attachment, Caregiving, and Sex. New York:GuilfordPress,2006.

Miller,Stacie,HeatherHoffmann,andBrianMustanski.“FluctuatingAsymmetry and Sexual Orientation in Men and Women.”ArchivesofSexualBehavior37,no.1(February2008):150–57.

Mintz,Steven.DomesticRevolutions:ASocialHistoryofAmericanFamilyLife.NewYork:FreePress,1988.

Mondaini,N.,etal.“SildenafilDoesNotImproveSexualFunctionin Men without Erectile Dysfunction but Does Reduce thePostorgasmic RefractoryT ime . ”International Journal ofImpotenceResearch15(2003):225–28.

Money, John. “Bisexual, Homosexual, and Heterosexual: Society,Law and Medicine.”Journal of Homosexuality 2, no.3 (Spring1977):229–33.

———.Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of EroticOrientation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1988.

——— .Principles of Developmental Sexology. New York:Continuum,1997.

———. “Sex Rearing and Sexual Orientation.”Journal of SexResearch12,no.2(May1976):152–57.

243

———.“ToQuimandtoSwive:LinguisticandCoitalParity,MaleandFemale.”JournalofSexResearch18,no.2(May1982):173.

Montagu, Ashley.The Practice of Love. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,1975.

Moore, John C. “ ‘Courtly Love’: A Problem of Terminology.”JournalofSocialHistory40,no.4 (October—December1979):621–32.

Mort, Frank.Dangerous Sexualities: Medico-Moral Politics inEnglandsince1830.NewYork:Routledge,2000.

Moscucci, Ornella.The Science of Woman. Cambridge, UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.

Mosse, George L.Nationalism and Sexuality: Respectability andAbnormal Sexuality in Modern Europe. New York: H. Fertig,1985.

Mulvey-Roberts, Marie.Sex & Sexuality, 1640-1940: Literary,MedicalandSociologicalPerspectives.Part1,SourcesfromtheBodleian Library, Oxford and the Wellcome Institute for theHistoryofMedicine,London.Marlborough,UK:AdamMatthewPublications,1998.

Munck, Victor C. De.Romantic Love and Sexual Behavior:Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Westport, CT: Praeger,1998.

Nagel, Joane.Race,Ethnicity,andSexuality: Intimate Intersections,ForbiddenFrontiers.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2003.

National Institute of Mental Health (US) Task Force onHomosexuality.National Institute ofMental Health Task ForceonHomosexuality:FinalReportandBackgroundPapers.1972.

Nelson, Claudia, andMichelleH.Martin, eds.Sexual Pedagogies:Sex Education in Britain, Australia, and America, 1879–2000.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2004.

Nelson, Robert K. “ ‘The Forgetfulness of Sex’: Devotion andDesireintheCourtshipLettersofAngelinaGrimkeandTheodoreDwightWeld.”JournalofSocialHistory37,no.3(Spring2004):663–79.

Newburn, Tim.Permission and Regulation: Laws and Morals in

244

PostWarBritain.London:Routledge,1992.Norton,Rictor.MotherClap’sMollyHouse:TheGaySubcultureinEngland,1700–1830.London:GMP,1992.

Nurius, Paula S., and Walter W. Hudson. “Sexual Activity andPreference: Six Quantifiable Dimensions.”Journal of SexResearch24(1988):30–46.

Odem, Mary. “Single Mothers, Delinquent Daughters, and theJuvenile Court in Early 20th Century LosAngeles.”Journal ofSocialHistory25,no.1(Autumn1991):27–43.

Omoto,AllenM.,andHowardS.Kurtzman,eds.SexualOrientationand Mental Health: Examining Identity and Development inLesbian,Gay, andBisexual People. Contemporary Perspectiveson Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology. Washington, DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,2006.

Oram, Alison.Her Husband Was a Woman! Women’s Gender-Crossing in Modern British Popular Culture. Women’s andGenderHistory.London:Routledge,2007.

Ordover,Nancy.AmericanEugenics:Race,QueerAnatomy,andtheScience of Nationalism. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress,2003.

O’Sullivan,LuciaF.,andElizabethRiceAllgeier.“FeigningSexualDesire:ConsentingtoUnwantedSexualActivityinHeterosexualDatingRelationships.”JournalofSexResearch 35,no.3(1998):234–43.

Parrinder, Edward Geoffrey.Sexual Morality in the World’sReligions.Oxford,UK:Oneworld,1996.

Pascoe,C. J. “ ‘Dude,You’re aFag’:AdolescentMasculinity andtheFagDiscourse.”Sexualities8,no.3(July2005):329–46.

Pateman, Carole.The Sexual Contract. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversityPress,1988.

Patrick,MeganE.,JenniferL.Maggs,andCaitlinC.Abar.“Reasonsto Have Sex, Personal Goals, and Sexual Behavior During theTransitiontoCollege.”JournalofSexResearch 44,no.3(2007):240–49.

Paul, Elizabeth L., Brian McManus, and Allison Hayes. “

245

‘Hookups’: Characteristics and Correlates of College Students’Spontaneous and Anonymous Sexual Experiences.”Journal ofSexResearch37,no.1(February2000):76–88.

Peiss, Kathy.CheapAmusements:WorkingWomenandLeisureinTurn-of-the-CenturyNewYork. Philadelphia: TempleUniversityPress,1986.

Peiss,Kathy,andChristinaSimmons,eds.,withRobertA.Padgug.PassionandPower:SexualityinHistory.CriticalPerspectivesonthePast.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,1989.

Perry,Lewis. “ ‘Progress,NotPleasure, IsOurAim’:TheSexualAdviceofanAntebellumRadical.”JournalofSocialHistory12,no.3(Spring1979):354–66.

Peterson,ZoëD.,andCharleneL.Muehlenhard.“WhatIsSexandWhy Does It Matter? A Motivational Approach to ExploringIndividuals’DefinitionsofSex.”JournalofSexResearch 44,no.3(2007):256–68.

Phillips,Mary Jane, and Julie R.Ancis. “The Process of IdentityDevelopmentastheParentofaLesbianorGayMale.”JournalofLGBTIssuesinCounseling2,no.2(2008):126–58.

Pitzulo, Carrie. “The Battle in EveryMan’s Bed: Playboy and theFiery Feminists.”Journal of the History of Sexuality 17, no. 2(May2008):259–89.

Plummer, Ken.Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change and SocialWorlds.London:Routledge,1995.

Popper, Karl. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations.” InConjectures and Refutations: The Growth of ScientificKnowledge,byKarlPopper.London:Routledge,1963.

Porter, Roy.Fleshin theAgeofReason:TheModernFoundationsofBodyandSoul.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,2004.

Primoratz, Igor. “Sexual Perversion.”American PhilosophicalQuarterly34,no.2(April1997):245–58.

Prince, Virginia. “Sex, Gender, and Semantics.”Journal of SexResearch21,no.1(February1985):92–101.

Pugh,Tison.SexualityandItsQueerDiscontentsinMiddleEnglishLiterature.2nded.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2008.

246

Purnine, DanielM.,Michael P. Carey, and Randall S. Jorgensen.“Gender Differences Regarding Preferences for SpecificHeterosexualPractices.”JournalofSexandMaritalTherapy20,no.4(Winter1994):271–87.

Raffalovich, Marc-Andre. “Uranism, Congenital Sexual Inversion,Observations and Recommendations.”Journal of ComparativeNeurology5(March1895):33–65.

Rainer, John D., et al. “Homosexuality and Heterosexuality inIdentical Twins.”Psychosomatic Medicine 22 (July–August1960):251–58.

Reed,James.FromPrivateVicetoPublicVirtue:TheBirthControlMovement andAmerican Society Since 1830. NewYork: BasicBooks,1978.

Regan,PamelaC.,andEllenBerscheid.Lust:WhatWeKnowAboutHuman Sexual Desire. Sage Series on Close Relationships.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,1999.

Reijneveld,SijmenA.,etal.“InfantCryingandAbuse.”Lancet364,no.9442(October9–15,2004):1340–42.

Reinisch,JuneMachover,andKinseyInstituteforResearchinSex,Gender, and Reproduction.TheKinsey Institute NewReport onSex:WhatYouMustKnowtoBeSexuallyLiterate.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1990.

Reis,Elizabeth,ed.AmericanSexualHistories.BlackwellReadersinAmericanSocialandCulturalHistory6.Malden,MA:BlackwellPublishers,2001.

Reiss, Ira L., et al.A Guide for Researching HeterosexualRelationships. Technical Report 4. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesotaFamilyStudyCenter,1980.

Remez, Lisa. “Oral Sex Among Adolescents: Is It Sex or Is ItAbstinence?”Family Planning Perspectives 32, no. 6(November/December2000):298–304.

Renold,Emma.“‘IfYouDon’tKissMe,You’reDumped’:Boys,Boyfriends and Heterosexualised Masculinities in the PrimarySchool.”EducationalReview55,no.2(June2003):179–94.

Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian

247

Existence.”Signs: Journal ofWomen in Culture and Society 5,no.4(Summer1980):631–60.

Richardson, Diane.Rethinking Sexuality. London: SAGEPublications,2000.

— — — .Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling It Straight.Buckingham,UK:OpenUniversityPress,1996.

Richetti, John, ed.The Cambridge Companion to the EighteenthCentury Novel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1996.

Richters, Juliet. “Understanding Sexual Orientation: A Plea forClarity.” Sexuality issue,ReproductiveHealthMatters 6, no. 12(November1998):144–49.

Ricketts,Wendell.“BiologicalResearchonHomosexuality:Ansell’sCow or Occam’s Razor.” Journal of Homosexuality 9, no. 4(1984):65–93.

Ridley,Carl,BrianOgolsky,PamelaPayne,CaseyTotenhagen,andRodney Cate. “Sexual Expression: Its Emotional Context inHeterosexual, Gay, and Lesbian Couples.”Journal of SexResearch45,no.3(2008):305–14.

Risch,Neil,etal.“MaleSexualOrientationandGeneticEvidence.”New series.Science262,no.5142(December24,1993):2063–65.

Robie,WalterFranklin.SexandLife:WhattheExperiencedShouldTeach and What the Inexperienced Should Learn. Boston:RichardG.Badger,1920.

———.Sex Histories. London: Amalgamated Medical Press, c.1921.

Robinson,PaulA.TheModernizationofSex:HavelockEllis,AlfredKinsey, William Masters, and Virginia Johnson. New York:Harper&Row,1976.

Romesburg, Don. “The Tightrope of Normalcy: Homosexuality,Developmental Citizenship, and American Adolescence, 1890–1940.”Journal of Historical Sociology 21, no. 4 (December2008):417–42.

Rosario, Vernon A., II, ed. Science and Homosexualities. New

248

York:Routledge,1997.Rose,June.MarieStopesandtheSexualRevolution.London:Faber

andFaber,1992.Rosenblum,KarenE.,andToni-MichelleC.Travis.TheMeaningofDifference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender,SocialClass,andSexualOrientation.4thed.Boston:McGraw-Hill,2006.

Rosenzweig, LindaW. “ ‘TheAnchor ofMy Life’:Middle-ClassAmerican Mothers and College-Educated Daughters, 1880–1920.”JournalofSocialHistory25,no.1(Autumn1991):5–25.

Ross, Michael W. “Typing, Doing, and Being: Sexuality and theInternet.”Journal of SexResearch 42, no. 4 (November 2005):342–52.

Rothman,EllenK. “Sex andSelf-Control:Middle-ClassCourtshipin America, 1770–1870.”Journal of Social History 15, no. 3(Spring1982):409–25.

Rotundo, E. Anthony.American Manhood: Transformations inMasculinity fromtheRevolution to theModernEra. NewYork:BasicBooks,1993.

———. “Romantic Friendship: Male Intimacy and Middle-ClassYouth in the Northern United States, 1800–1900.” Journal ofSocialHistory23,no.1(Autumn1989):1–25.

Roughgarden, Joan.Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, andSexualityinNatureandPeople.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2004.

Rowbotham, Judith.GoodGirlsMakeGoodWives:Guidance forGirlsinVictorianFiction.Oxford,UK:Blackwell,1989.

Royden,A.Maude.SexandCommon-Sense.8thed.London:HurstandBlackett,1922.

Rubin,GayleS.“ThinkingSex:NotesforaRadicalTheoryon thePolitics of Sexuality.” InTheLesbian andGay StudiesReader,edited by HenryAbelove et al., 3–44. New York: Routledge,1993.

Rupp,LeilaJ.ADesiredPast:AShortHistoryofSame-SexLoveinAmerica.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999.

249

Russ, Joanna. “For Women Only, Or, What Is That Man DoingunderMySeat?”InWhatAreWeFightingFor?Sex,Race,Class,andtheFutureofFeminism, byJoannaRuss,92.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1998.

Russell, Bertrand.Marriage and Morals. New York: Liveright,1929.

Russett,CynthiaEagle.SexualScience:TheVictorianConstructionof Womanhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1989.

Rust, Paula C.Bisexuality in the United States: A Social ScienceReader.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2000.

———. “The Politics of Sexual Identity: Sexual Attraction andBehavioramongLesbianandBisexualWomen.”SocialProblems39,no.4(November1992):366–86.

Sagarin, Edward. “Sex Rearing and Sexual Orientation: TheReconciliationofApparentlyContradictoryData.”JournalofSexResearch11,no.4(November1975):329–34.

Saiz, Ignacio. “Bracketing Sexuality: Human Rights and SexualOrientation:ADecade of Development andDenial at theUN.”Sexuality,HumanRights, andHealth issue,HealthandHumanRights7,no.2(2004):48–80.

Sandnabba, N. Kenneth, Pekka Santtila, Niklas Nordling. “SexualBehavior and Social Adaptation Among Sadomasochistically-Oriented Males.”Journal of Sex Research 36, no. 3 (August1999):273–82.

Santow, Gigi. “Coitus Interruptus in the Twentieth Century.”PopulationandDevelopmentReview19(1993):767–92.

Schiebinger, Londa.Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making ofModernScience.Boston:BeaconPress,1996.

Schlichter, Annette. “Contesting ‘Straights’: ‘Lesbians,’ ‘QueerHeterosexuals’andtheCritiqueofHeteronormativity.” JournalofLesbianStudies11,nos.3/4(June2007):189–201.

Schmersahl,Katrin.MedizinUndGeschlecht:ZurKonstruktionDerKategorie Geschlecht Im Medizinischen Diskurs Des 19.Jahrhunderts.Opladen:Leske&Budrich,1998.

250

Schmitt,MichaelT.,JustinJ.Lehmiller,andAllisonL.Walsh.“TheRole ofHeterosexual Identity Threat inDifferential Support forSame-Sex‘CivilUnions’versus ‘Marriages.’”GroupProcesses&IntergroupRelations10,no.4(October2007):443–55.

Schüklenk,Udo, et al. “TheEthics ofGeneticResearch onSexualOrientation.”Sexualityissue.ReproductiveHealthMatters 6,no.12(November1998):134–43.

Schüklenk,Udo,andMichaelRistow.“TheEthicsofResearchintothe Cause(s) of Homosexuality.”Journal of Homosexuality 31,no.3(September1996):5–30.

Shulman, Alix K. “Sex and Power: Sexual Bases of RadicalFeminism.” Special issue: Women: Sex and Sexuality. Signs 5,no.4(Summer1980):590–604.

Schultz, James A.Courtly Love, the Love of Courtliness, and theHistoryofSexuality.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006.

Schutte,Ofelia.“ACritiqueofNormativeHeterosexuality: Identity,Embodiment, and Sexual Difference in Beauvoir and Irigaray.”Hypatia12,no.1(Winter1997):40–62.

Schwartz,Pepper,andVirginiaRutter.TheGenderofSexuality.TheGenderLens.Lanham,MD:AltaMiraPress,1998.

Seelow,David.RadicalModernismandSexuality:Freud,Reich,D.H.LawrenceandBeyond.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2005.

Segal, Lynne.Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994.

Seidman, Steven.Embattled Eros: Sexual Politics and Ethics inContemporaryAmerica. Thinking Gender. New York:Routledge,1992.

———.“ThePowerofDesireandtheDangerofPleasure:VictorianSexuality Reconsidered.”Journal of Social History 24, no. 1(Autumn1990):47–67.

———.Romantic Longings: Love in America, 1830–1980. NewYork:Routledge,1991.

Sengoopta, Chandak. “Glandular Politics: Experimental Biology,Clinical Medicine, and Homosexual Emancipation in Fin-de-SiècleCentralEurope.”Isis89,no.3(September1998):445–73.

251

Shelley, Martha. “Lesbianism and the Women’s LiberationMovement.” InWomen’s Liberation: Blueprint for the Future,editedbySookieStambler,127.NewYork:AceBooks,1970.

Sherblom,StephenA., andMichaelW.Bahr. “Homosexuality andNormality: Basic Knowledge and Practical Considerations forSchool Consultation.”Journal of Educational & PsychologicalConsultation18,no.1(March2008):81–100.

Sigel, Lisa Z.Governing Pleasures: Pornography and SocialChange in England, 1815–1914. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversityPress,2002.

Simon, William, and John H. Gagnon.Heterosexuality andHomosociality: A Dilemma of the Lower Class Family.Bloomington: Institute for Sex Research, Indiana University,1967.

Sinfield,Alan.TheWildeCentury:Effeminacy,OscarWilde,andtheQueerMoment. Between Men—Between Women. New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1994.

Smith, Alison.The Victorian Nude: Sexuality, Morality and Art.Manchester,UK:ManchesterUniversityPress,1996.

Smith, Daniel Scott “Female Householding in Late Eighteenth-CenturyAmericaandtheProblemofPoverty.” JournalofSocialHistory28,no.1(Autumn1994):83–107.

———. “ ‘The Number and Quality of Children’: Education andMarital Fertility in Early Twentieth-Century Iowa.”Journal ofSocialHistory30,no.2(Winter1996):367–92.

Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll.Disorderly Conduct: Visions of GenderinVictorianAmerica.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1986.

———.“TheFemaleWorldofLoveandRitual:RelationsbetweenWomeninNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.” Signs1,no.1(Autumn1975):1–29

———. “Puberty to Menopause: The Cycle of Femininity inNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.” Special Double Issue: Women’sHistory.FeministStudies1,nos.3/4(Winter–Spring1973):58–72.

———. “Sex as Symbol in Victorian Purity: An Ethnohistorical

252

Analysisof JacksonianAmerica.”Supplement: “TurningPoints:Historical and SociologicalEssays on the Family.”AmericanJournalofSociology84(1978):212–47.

Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll, and Charles Rosenberg. “The FemaleAnimal:MedicalandBiologicalViewsofWomanandHerRolein Nineteenth-Century America.”Journal of American History60,no.2(September1973):332–56.

Soble, Alan, and Nicholas Power, eds.The Philosophy of Sex:Contemporary Readings. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,1997.

SocialTextCollective.FearofaQueerPlanet:QueerPoliticsandSocial Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1993.

Sohn,Anne-Marie “TheGoldenAgeofMaleAdultery:TheThirdRepublic.”Journal of Social History 28, no. 3 (Spring 1995):469–90.

Sokolow, Jayme A.Eros and Modernization: Sylvester Graham,HealthReform,andtheOriginsofVictorianSexualityinAmerica.Rutherford,NJ:FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress,1983.

Somerville,Jennifer.FeminismandtheFamily:PoliticsandSocietyin theUKandUSA.Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire,UK:Macmillan,2000.

Sommer, Doris. “For Love and Money: Of Potboilers andPrecautions.”PMLA116,no.2(March2001):380–91.

Spackman,Barbara.“FascistWomenandtheRhetoricofVirility.”InMothers of Invention:Women,Fascism, andCulture, edited byRobin Pickering-Iazzi. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress,1995.

Spurlock, John C.Free Love: Marriage and Middle-ClassRadicalisminAmerica,1825–1860.AmericanSocialExperienceSeries13.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1988.

Spurlock,JohnC.,andCynthiaA.Magistro.“‘DreamsNevertoBeRealized’: Emotional Culture and the Phenomenology ofEmotion.”Journal of Social History 28, no. 2 (Winter 1994):295–310.

253

Stanley, Liz.SexSurveyed,1949–1994:FromMassObservation’s‘Little Kinsey’ to the National Survey and the Hite Reports.London:TaylorandFrancis,1995.

Stansell, Christine.City of Women: Sex and Class in New York,1789–1860.NewYork:Knopf,1986.

Stanton,DomnaC., ed.Discourses of Sexuality:FromAristotle toAIDS.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1992.

Steakley, James D.The Homosexual Emancipation Movement inGermany.Homosexuality.NewYork:ArnoPress,1975.

Stearns, Peter N. “Girls, Boys, and Emotions: Redefinitions andHistoricalChange.”JournalofAmericanHistory80,no.1(June1993):36–74.

Stearns, Peter N., and Mark Knapp. “Men and Romantic Love:Pinpointing a 20th-Century Change.”Journal of Social History26,no.4(Summer1993):769–95.

Stein,Edward.TheMismeasureofDesire:TheScience,Theory,andEthicsofSexualOrientation. IdeologiesofDesire.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress,1999.

———. “The Relevance of Scientific Research about SexualOrientation to Lesbian and Gay Rights.”Journal ofHomosexuality27,nos.3/4(November1994):269–308.

Stein, Terry S. “Deconstructing Sexual Orientation.”Journal ofHomosexuality34,no.1(September1997):81–86.

Stokes,MasonBoyd.TheColorofSex:Whiteness,Heterosexuality,and the Fictions of White Supremacy. Durham, NC: DukeUniversityPress,2001.

Stone,Lawrence.TheFamily,Sex,andMarriageinEngland,1500–1800.NewYork:HarperandRow,1979.

Stopes, Marie.Enduring Passion. London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,1928.

———.MarriedLove.London:A.C.Fifield,1918.Storr,Merl. “Postmodern Bisexuality.”Sexualities 2, no. 3 (1999):

309–25.Strock, Carren.Married Women Who Love Women. New York:

Doubleday,1998.

254

Suppe,Frederick.“ExplainingHomosexuality:PhilosophicalIssues,andWhoCaresAnyhow?”JournalofHomosexuality27,nos.3/4(November1994):223–68.

Surkis, Judith.Sexing the Citizen: Morality and Masculinity inFrance,1870–1920.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,2006.

Szuchman, Lenore T., and Frank Muscarella, eds.PsychologicalPerspectivesonHumanSexuality.NewYork:Wiley,2000.

Tanenbaum, Leora.Slut! Growing Up Female with a BadReputation.NewYork:SevenStoriesPress,1999.

Terry,Jennifer.“LesbiansUndertheMedicalGaze:ScientistsSearchforRemarkableDifferences.”JournalofSexResearch 27,no.3(1990):317–39.

Terry, Jennifer, and Jacqueline Urla, eds.Deviant Bodies: CriticalPerspectivesonDifferenceinScienceandPopularCulture. Race,Gender, and Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1995.

Thomas, Calvin, ed.Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and theSubject ofHeterosexuality. Urbana:University of Illinois Press,2000.

Thompson,ElisabethMorgan,andElizabethM.Morgan.“‘MostlyStraight’ Young Women: Variations in Sexual Behavior andIdentity Development.”Developmental Psychology 44, no. 1(January2008):15–21.

Tiefer,Leonore.“Prognosis:MorePharmasex.”Sexualities11,nos.1/2(February2008):53–59.

———.SexIsNotaNaturalAct,andOtherEssays.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress,1995.

Toulalan, Sarah. Review ofSensible Flesh: On Touch in EarlyModernCulture,byE.D.Harvey,ed.Sexualities7,no.3(2004):381–83.

Travis, Cheryl Brown, and Jacquelyn W. White, eds.Sexuality,Society, and Feminism. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,2000.

Tripp, C.A. (ClarenceArthur).The HomosexualMatrix. 2nd ed.NewYork:Plume,1987.

255

Trumbach,Randolph.“London’sSodomites:HomosexualBehaviorand Western Culture in the 18th Century.” Journal of SocialHistory11,no.1(Autumn1977):1–33.

———.SexandtheGenderRevolution,Vol.1:Heterosexualityandthe ThirdGender in Enlightenment London. Chicago Series onSexuality,History, andSociety.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1998.

Turnbull, Annmarie, and Alison Oram.The Lesbian HistorySourcebook:LoveandSexbetweenWomeninBritainfrom1780to1970.London:Routledge,2001.

Turner, JamesGrantham.LibertinesandRadicals inEarlyModernLondon: Sexuality, Politics and Literary Culture, 1630–1685.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.

Tweedie, Jill.IntheNameofLove:AStudyofSexualDesire. NewYork:TaurisParke,2000.

Upchurch, Charles. “Queer London: Perils and Pleasures in theSexual Metropolis, 1918–1957.”Sexualities 9, no. 4 (October2006):497–98.

Valdes, Francisco. “Queers, Sissies, Dykes, and Tomboys:Deconstructing the Conflation of ‘Sex,’ ‘Gender,’ and ‘SexualOrientation’inEuro-AmericanLawandSociety.”CaliforniaLawReview83,no.1(January1995):1–377.

Valenti, Jessica.ThePurityMyth:HowAmerica’sObsessionwithVirginity Is Hurting YoungWomen. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press,2009.

Vance, Carole S., ed.Pleasure and Danger: Exploring FemaleSexuality.London:PandoraPress,1992.

Van de Velde, Theodor. Ideal Marriage: Its Physiology andTechnique. Translated by Stella Browne. London: WilliamHeinemann,1928.

Vicinus, Martha.Independent Women: Work and Community forSingle Women, 1850 –1920. Women in Culture and Society.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1985.

Waites, Matthew. “The Fixity of Sexual Identities in the PublicSphere: Biomedical Knowledge, Liberalism and

256

Heterosexual/HomosexualBinaryinLateModernity.”Sexualities8,no.5(December2005):539–69.

Waterman,CarolineK.,andEmilJ.Chiauzzi.“TheRoleofOrgasminMaleandFemaleSexualEnjoyment.”JournalofSexResearch18,no.2(May1982):146–59.

Watkins, Elizabeth Siegel.On the Pill: A Social History ofContraceptives, 1950–1970. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversityPress,1998.

Watt,JohnD.,andJackieE.Ewing.“TowardtheDevelopmentandValidation of a Measure of Sexual Boredom.” Journal of SexResearch33,no.1(1996):57–66.

Weeks, Jeffrey. Invented Moralities: Sexual Values in an Age ofUncertainty.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1995.

———.Sex,Politics,andSociety:TheRegulationofSexualitysince1800.London:Longman,1989.

———.The World We Have Won: The Remaking of Erotic andIntimateLife.London:Routledge,2007.

Weeks, Jeffrey, and JanetHolland. Sexual Cultures: Communities,Values,andIntimacy.Basingstoke,UK:MacMillan,1996.

Weld,TheodoreDwight,AngelinaEmilyGrimke,andSarahMooreGrimke.LettersofTheodoreDwightWeld,AngelinaGrimkeandSarah Grimke, 1822–1844. Edited by Gilbert H. Barnes andDwightL.Dumond.Gloucester,MA:PeterSmith,1965.

Wells, Joel W. “The Sexual Vocabularies of Heterosexual andHomosexual Males and Females for Communicating with aSexual Partner.”Archives of Sexual Behavior 19, no. 2 (April1990):139–47.

Welter, Barbara. “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820–1860.”AmericanQuarterly18,no.2,part1(Summer1966):151–74.

Wertham,Fredric.SeductionoftheInnocent.NewYork:Reinhart&Company,1954.

West’sEncyclopediaofAmericanLaw. 2nded.LosAngeles:WestGroupPublishing,1998.

Widmer, Eric D., Judith Treas, and Robert Newcomb. “AttitudesToward Nonmarital Sex in 24 Countries.”Journal of Sex

257

Research35,no.4(November1998):349–58.Wilkerson, Abby. “Homophobia and the Moral Authority of

Medicine.”Journal of Homosexuality 27, nos. 3/4 (November1994):329–47.

Wilson, Gordon.The Third Sex:Genders of the Species. London:Taprobane,1990.

Wilson, W. Cody. “The Distribution of Selected SexualAttitudesandBehaviorsAmongtheAdultPopulationoftheUnitedStates.”JournalofSexResearch11,no.1(February1975):46–64.

Winship, Michael P. “Behold the Bridegroom Cometh! MaritalImagery in Massachusetts Preaching, 1630–1730.”EarlyAmericanLiterature27,no.3(1992):170–84.

Wintermute, Robert.Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: TheUnited States Constitution, the European Convention, and theCanadianCharter.Oxford,UK:ClarendonPress,1995.

Wittig, Monique.The Straight Mind, and Other Essays. Boston:BeaconPress,1992.

Wollstonecraft, Mary, and Carol H. Poston.A Vindication of theRights of Woman: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, theWollstonecraft Debate, Criticism. New York: W. W. Norton,1988.

Wood, Jill M., Patricia Barthalow Koch, and Phyllis KernoffMansfield. “Women’s Sexual Desire: A Feminist Critique.”JournalofSexResearch43,no.3(2006):236–44.

Wright, Bradford.Comic Book Nation: The Transformation ofYouthCultureinAmerica. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2001.

Yalom,Marilyn.AHistoryoftheWife. NewYork:HarperCollins,2002.

Zaun, Stefanie, and Jorn Steigerwald.Imagination Und Sexualität:PathologienDerEinbildungskraftImMedizinischenDiskursDerFrühenNeuzeit.AnalectaRomanicaHeft71.Frankfurt,Germany:Klostermann,2004.

Zuckerman, Marvin, and P. L. Myers. “Sensation Seeking inHomosexual and Heterosexual Males.”Archives of Sexual

258

Behavior12,no.4(August1983):347–56.

259

INDEX

Pleasenotethatpagenumbersarenotaccurateforthee-bookedition.

abstinence-onlysexeducation,31,144Acton,William,12,13adolescence,112,144.Seealsocourtshipculture;datingcultureadultery,37,139,149AdvicetoaDaughter(Halifax),76AfricanAmericansexualstereotypes,129–30ageofconsent,8aggression,sexual,45,46,47–48,126–27,143–44alienationofaffections,106,176n19Allen,Bob,xvi,154AmericanAssociationofUniversityWomen,32AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory,140AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,151anaesthesia(PsychopathiaSexualis),19analpenetration,37,46,124,142AnatomyofMelancholy(Burton),127Andersen,HansChristian,95AnglicanChurch,72,73,91annulment,marital,78,84,174n9theanthropicprincipleandsexualorientation,62–66AnthropologicalSocietyofLondon,64anti-contraceptionarguments,86,88aphrodisiacs,121“AreFathersNecessary?,”158Aristotle’sMasterPiece,130Army-McCarthyhearings,152arrangedmarriage,69–70artificialinsemination,155–56,158Ashburn,Roy,150Astell,Mary,75,76Atkinson,Ti-Grace,116,142Augustine,124Austen,Jane,73,98autonomyoftheindividual,xv,83–84,146,149Avicenna(IbnSina),126,127

babyboom,post–WorldWarII,92Bailey,Beth,109,111Bailey,Michael,xxvBakerBrown,Isaac,12,13Balls-Headley,Walter,85Balzac,Honoréde,129Beard,DanielCarter,14Beard,GeorgeMiller,14bedsharing,23–25Bentham,Jeremy,17,74Berend,Zsuzsa,102Bergler,Edmund,137

260

Biblarz,Timothy,157–58binarysex/gendersystemandthelaw,xiii,xiv,159–63biologicalsex,ix–xiv,xx–xxiii,xxvi,159–63Blackwell,Elizabeth,103bluestockings,82BoehringerIngelheim,145BookofCommonPrayer,73Bos,Henny,158BraveNewWorld(Huxley),155Broca,Paul,64Broca’sarea,44Broderick,CarlfredB.,113Bromley,DorothyDunbar,36BrothersGrimm,95Brown,IsaacBaker,12,13Brown,LouiseJoy,155Brown,RobertC.,106Brownv.BoardofEducation,37bukkakepornography,144BulwerLytton,Edward,98BureaudesMoeurs(BureauofMorals),8BureauSanitaire(BureauofSanitation),8Burney,Fanny,98Burrows,Montagu,82Burton,Richard,127

Calvin,John,79CampaignforOurChildren,157,180n10Carlile,Richard,12,13Carlyle,JaneWelsh,99Carlyle,Thomas,99Carmichael,Stokely,115CarminaBurana,125–26Carroll,Lewis,50CatholicChurch:canonlawof,15;oncontraception,90;Counter-reformation,79,96;ondivorceandannulment,78,84;oninfertility,xi;onmarriage,72,74,78;onpenis-in-vaginaintercourse,124–25;onprocreativesex,xi,2–3,19,34,45;andreproductivetechnology,155–58;sexasmanifestationofunrulyappetites,3;sodomy,definitionof,2

Cavazo,Lee(ChristieLeeLittleton),160celibacyandholiness,72CentersforDiseaseControl,92CentralYMCACollege,134charitygirls,111charivari,5Chaucer,Geoffrey,125children:birthratesof,90–91,92–93;thedesiretobear,12,30,46,85;andinfantmortality rates, 87, 88; as thepurposeofmarriage, 84–86,93–94; and socialDarwinism,89

chimerism(genetic),161–62,180n13Christianity,100–101,148ChurchofEngland,72,73,91Cinderella’sFairy-TaleWeddingBook(Disney),96

261

circumcision,47,173n6civilegalitarianism,7–8.SeealsoEnlightenment-eraegalitarianismcivilrights,37–38,115,141–43,150,153Clark,Jonathan,159–60classidentityandsexuality,6,11–12,103–4,129–30,133clitoridectomy,12,170n5,172n5clitoris,12,132,133,136–37cohabitation,93Cohen,Richard,34Cohn,Roy,152colonialism,13–14companionatemarriage,72–73,93,96,105,130–31compulsorysterilization,90consent,ageof,8consumercultureanddating,107–9ContagiousDiseasesActs(UK;1864),8contraception,xi,86–88,90–94,115,141contranaturam(againstnature),34Coontz,Stephanie,84,114,155Cotton,John,70CouncilofChurchesofChrist,91Counterreformation,Catholic,79,96courtshipculture,103–4,106–7,110.Seealsodatingculture;teenagerscoverture,marital,76–78Cowan,John,128–29Craig,Larry,xvi,150–51Craik,Dinah,99Cranmer,Thomas,72–73cryptogamia,10cultural doxa: on arrangedmarriage, 69–70; on companionatemarriage, 72–73;folkprocessofdevelopmentof,25–27;onmaritalpersonalfulfillment,69,73–75;andmarkedcategories,31–33,147–48;onobligatorymarriage,68–69;onthephysicalmanifestationofsexuality,54–57

culture,human,4–9,7–8,11–15,63–66cunnilingus,124

Darwin,Charles,6–7,14,63–64datingculture:andcompetition,109;aseducation,113–14;andlove,110,112,113,114;originsof,106–7;asaphaseoflife,112;priortoWorldWarII,109,113; and race ideology, 107, 129–30; role of economics in, 106–9, 111–12;serialmonogamyin,113;andsexualpromiscuity,110–11,112,144;andurbanlife,107–8.Seealsocourtshipculture;teenagers

Davis,KatherineBement,134DeclarationoftheRightsofManandCitizen,17Defoe,Daniel,76“DegenerationandGenius”(James),15Degler,Carl,139–40D’Emilio,John,141Densmore,Dana,142DepartmentofLabor(US),83desire,erotic,xxiii–xxiv,xxvi,68–70,72–75,130–31Deutsch,Helene,137Diamond,Lisa,xxv,154Dickens,Charles,98,100DionandtheBelmonts,114

262

DisneyCompany,95–96,99,100,118–19TheDistressedOrphan(Haywood),98divorce,78–82,84,174n11dodecandria,10Dorland’sMedicalDictionary(1901),20Dörner,Günter,62Doxa.Seeculturaldoxa;sexdoxaDuffy,Eliza,88Duggar,JimBob,85Duggar,Michelle,85Dunbar,Robin,35

economicsandeconomicautonomy,83–84,106–9,111–12ejaculation,144Ellis,Havelock,20,45,85,117,131,133,137emotionalpleasure,102,114Enlightenment-era egalitarianism: and autonomy of the individual, xv, 83–84,146,149;andcivildivorce,79–80;andcivilmarriagecontracts,78–79; andfeminism,76;andmaritalcoverture,76–78;andprocreation,84;social,75–76

EqualProtectionClause,81Erasmus,74eroticdesire,xxiii–xxiv,xxvi,68–70,72–75,130–31eugenics,7,89–90EugenicSterilizationLaw(Germany),90evangelicalChristianity,101–3Evelina(Burney),98

FactorsintheSexLivesof2200Women(Davis),134familyandmorality,11–15familyplanning,90,175n24–25.SeealsocontraceptionFarnham,Marynia,138Farrar,Mrs.John,103FatalAttraction(film),128TheFatalFondness(Haywood),98“FathersNotNeeded,”156Fausto-Sterling,Anne,xiiiFeenstra,Harold,81Feenstra,Joan,81fellatio,124feminism:first-wave,116;andFreud,136–37;andlove,105–6;andmarryingforlove, 72, 105–6; second-wave, 116, 117; and sexism, 115–17, 177n42; andsocialegalitarianism,76;andwomen’ssexualfreedom,141–43,179n25

fertility,86–87,88,90–92Ferveur,Jean-Francois,51Firestone,Shulamith,116flappers,136–37Flaubert,Gustave,98Flibanserin,145,179n30Florence,Italy,125Foley,Mark,xviForbes,Malcolm,153Foucault,Michel,3FourteenthAmendment,81

263

Fowler,Orson,130Freedman,Estelle,141freelove,115Freud, Sigmund: on female masochism, 117; on heterosexuality, 135–37; onlibido and personhood, 28–31, 135–36, 145; on penis-in-vagina copulation,134–35;onperversion,45;researchbasisof,36,44;onvaginalorgasm,133,136–37,138

frigidity,136,137–38FromFrontPorchtoBackSeat(Bailey,Beth),109Frye,Marilyn,xxiv

Galen,126Gallupreportonhomosexuality(2010),154Galton,Francis,7Gartrell,Nanette,158gaysandgayissues.Seehomosexualitygenderessentialismmodel,xxigender norms: and body characteristics, 16–17, 42, 52, 54–56, 57–62;immutabilityof,148;improper,46–48;andnonprocreativeintercourse,46;ofthe nuclear household, 157–58, 159–61; post–World War II, 115; and self-expression,xiii;sexuallycomplementary,46,47;socialgender,xii–xiii;andsocialsignaling,xxiii

genderreassignment,xxi,160–61,162gendersocialization,xxi–xxiii,xxvigenitalia,external,ix,xiii,xxGerhardt,Jane,138Germany,15–16,18,60–61,90Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon,98goingsteady,113.SeealsodatingcultureGoodyearRubberCompany,91Graham,James,121Graham,Sylvester,14,47GrandStateCelestialBed,121GreatChainofBeing(scalanaturae),6–7,64GreatExpectations(Dickens),98Green,Richard,58Greenspan,Ralph,51Grenfell,Fanny,104Grimke,Angelina,104–6GrimmBrothers,95Griswoldv.Connecticut,91G-spotamplificationsurgery,144,179n29Guernsey,Henry,13GurleyBrown,Helen,67,68,75

Halifax,CharlesWood,76,78Hall,GranvilleStanley,112Halperin,David,40Hamilton,Cicely,116Hanchett,HenryC.,129HardlyaManIsNowAlive(Beard,DanielCarter),14Hay,Harry,38Haywood,Eliza,98

264

headandmasterlaws,81Hekma,Gert,55Henig,RobinMarantz,158Henry,George,36HenryVIII,72hermaphroditismandsexualinversion,16–17,54–56,57–62heterodoxoutliersexuality,37heterosexuality:andtheanthropicprinciple,62–66;assimilativepowerof,xvi–xvii, 149–50, 153–55; and the autonomy of the individual, xv, 83–84, 146,149; binary sex/gender system and the law, xiii, xiv, 159–63; as biologicalresult of sexual dimorphism, xviii; and the change inmarital power, 81–82;claiming,165–66;culturaldoxaof,xv–xvi,xix,27,30–31,39–40,66,118–19,148–50; defined, xvii–xviii, 19–21, 28–29; and episodic same-sex desires,154;equalityof term,17,33;and feminism,105;in fictionand film,95–96,97–100, 118–19, 175n1; Freud on, 135–37; heterosexual privilege, 159–63,164–65; identificationofstraightbodies,41,55–56,59,62; inventionof, intimeandplace,xiv,4,9,15–18,27–28,44;loveasdefiningcomponentof,106,143;andmutualpersonaldesires,83–84,94;andnontraditionalfamilies,157–58;and thenuclearhouseholdgendernorm,157–58,159–61;asoppositeofhomosexuality,42–43;optionsforwomen,117;andparent-childrelationships,28–30, 157–58; perception of, 163–64; pleasure as ethos of, 114, 134;procreationasbaselineof,139;self-identificationas,52;andtheshiftinmoralauthority, xv; and situational homosexuality, xviii–xix; as social behavior,xxv–xxvi, 50–51; and social gender, xii–xiii, xxi–xxiii, xxvi; as a term ofpathology,20

Himmler,Heinrich,61Hirschfeld,Magnus,55,56–57HistoryofSexuality(Foucault),3Hitler,Adolf,18Hitschmann,Eduard,137Hollick,Frederick,130homosexuality:andchildhoodexperiences,29;culturaldoxaof,23–25,65,66,124,150–55,151–52;equalityofterm,17,33;evidenceofexistenceof,42–43;Gallupreport (2010)on,154;gayand lesbian rightsorganizations,117;andhormonalinversionresearch,51–53,58–61;identificationofgaybodies,16–17,42,52,54–55,57–62;innature,34–35;asoppositeofheterosexuality,42–43;andthePrussianPenalCode,16–18;reparativetherapyfor,34,171n12;andsame-sexmarriage,154;self-identificationas,52;situational,xviii–xix;urbanproto-gaysubculture,48–49.Seealsolesbians;LGBTcommunity

hormonalinversionresearch,51–53,58–61hormone-pelletimplantation,61HSDD(HypoactiveSexualDesireDisorder),145Hudson,Rock,151–52Huet,Pierre-Daniel,97humanculture,4–9,7–8,11–15,63–66HumanSexualResponse(MastersandJohnson),140–41Hunt,James,64Hunter,John,155Huxley,Aldous,155TheHygieneofMarriage(CentralYMCACollege),134hyperaesthesia(PsychopathiaSexualis),19HypoactiveSexualDesireDisorder(HSDD),145

265

IbnSina(Avicenna),126,127IdealMarriage(vandeVelde),30identityandsexuality,6,11–12,103–4,129–30,133impotence,psychic,47–48individualautonomy,xv,83–84,146,149infantmortalityrates,87,88infertility,xiinsemination,155–56,158“TheInstitutionofSexualIntercourse”(Atkinson),142intersexsexchromosomes,xx,161–62IntimateMatters(D’EmilioandFreedman),141TheInventionofHeterosexuality(Katz),20Islam,ondivorce,78Ittmann,Karl,90IVF(invitrofertilization),155–56,158

Jackson,Stevi,149Jacobi,Abraham,47James,William,15JaneEyre,98Jefferson,Thomas,74Johnson,Samuel,98Johnson,Virginia,140–41,142JournalofSexResearchstudy,38Judaism,ondivorce,78,174n10Julia(daughterofJuliusCaesar),71

Karras,RuthMazo,34,125Katz,JonathanNed,xiv,4,20,29–30,135,145Kellogg,John,47Kertbeny,Karl-Maria,9,16,17,33,148,165Kiernan,JamesG.,20Kingsley,Charles,104,105Kinsey,Alfred,xvi,35–38,138–39,140,141–42KissMe,Kate(musical),36KleinfelterSyndrome,x,xi,169n1Koedt,Anne,142Kornitzer,Margaret,114Krafft-Ebing,Richardvon,8–9,18–20,36,45,49,135,158

Lady’sMagazine,71Landis,Carney,36Lavoisier,Anton,43law, application of: and age of consent, 8; and alienation of affections, 106,176n19;andbiologicalsex,xiii,159–63;EugenicSterilizationLaw(Germany),90; and the invention of heterosexuality, xiv, 16–18; and the invention ofhomosexuality, xiv; and the legal personhood of women, 81; and sexualactivity,5–6,8,16–18,143;andthetenderyearsdoctrine,157,180n9

lesbians,116,136,142–43,156,158.Seealsohomosexuality;LGBTcommunity“LesbianSex”(Frye),xxiv“LetterstoCatherineBeecher”(Grimke),105LeVay,Simon,52–53LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-gender) community: attitudes toward, 154;

266

civilrightsmovement,141–43,150,153;culture,152;gayandlesbianrightsorganizations, 117; and orgasm, 141–43; outing of, 150, 152–54, 156;reproductivearrangementsof,156;sexualorientationdoxaof,xi–xii.Seealsohomosexuality;lesbians

libidoandpersonhood,28–31,135–36,145Lincoln,Abraham,24Linnaeus,Carolus,9–10Littleton,ChristieLee,160–61Littleton,JonathanMark,160Locke,John,74LordHardwicke’sMarriageAct(UK;1753),79Louisiana,81love:ascomponentofheterosexuality,106,143;anddating,110,112,113–14;howdefined,before1868,1–2;andfeminism,105–6;infictionandfilm,95–96, 97–100, 118–19, 175n1; imagery in Christianity, 100–101; as learnedbehavior,71;andorgasmasthegoalofsex,143;andtheperfectunion,103–4,114;roleinmarriageof,70–72;spiritualized,100–104

Lundberg,Ferdinand,138Luther,Martin,72

MadameBovary(Flaubert),98Magnus,Albertus,126Malthus,Thomas,88,89Maria,ortheWrongsofWoman(Wollstonecraft),98markedcategoriesofsexuality,31–33,147–48marriage:annulmentof,78,84,179n9;arranged,69–70;biblicalscriptureon,78;CatholicChurchon,72,74,78;civilcontractsof,78–79;cohabitationwithout,93;companionate,72–73,93,96,105,130–31;comparedtoHeaven,100–101;and coverture, 76–78; and divorce law, 78–82, 84, 174n11; and extramaritalsexualexperience,37,139,149;andfeminism,105–6;importanceofchildrento,84–86,93–94; loveand,70–72;andmarryingfor love,72,105–6;men’sexpectations of, 70–71, 126–27, 129, 131–33; obligatory, 68–69; andpassionateromance,97–98,100–101,102–3;aspersonalfulfillment,69,73–75;powerandheterosexuality,81–82;andprocreation,69,128–30,131,134;andpropertyrights,76–77,78–80,80–81;ratesof,93;regulationof,78–80;same-sex, 154; and the view of singlewomen, 67–68, 77, 93, 133;women’sexpectationsof,70–71,130–31,131–33.Seealsochildren;procreation

MarriageAct(UK;1753),79MarriageandMorals(Russell),85MarriedLove(Stopes),30MarriedWomen’sPropertyActs(UK;1870and1882),80Martin,Ricky,154masochism,45,117Masters,William,140–41,142masturbation,12,37,46,124,133–34,138–39maternalmortalityrates,87,88Mather,Cotton,101MattachineSociety,38Matthew19:6,78Maurice,Frederick,14McCarthy,Joseph,152McCormick,KatherineDexter,91McLaren,Angus,14,46,144

267

Melville,Herman,24men:and theautonomyof the individual,83–84;andcircumcision,47,173n6;earningpowerof,108;economic role indating,106–8,111;andejaculation,144; expectations of the marital relationship, 70–71, 126–27, 129, 131–33;Freudiansexualdevelopmentof,135–36;homosexualexperienceof,138–39,150–52;intheKinseyreport(1948),36;male-providerroleof,107–8,148;andmaritalcoverture,76–78;andmasturbation,138–39;andthenuclearhouseholdgender norm, 157–58, 159–61; and orgasm, 131–33, 138–39; and thepatriarchal status quo, 151–52; and performance anxiety, 133;and psychicimpotence,47–48;andsexualaggression,45,46;sexualenervationof,47–48,126–28,143–44;sexuallycomplementarygendernormsof,46,47;andwhitemasculinity,14

middle-classculture,11–15Mill,JohnStuart,74Miller,Scott,159–60“Miller’sTale”(Chaucer),125Mississippi,80MobyDick(Melville),24ModelSterilizationLaw(US),90ModernWoman(FarnhamandLundberg),138monandria,10Money,John,xxmonogamy,serial,113Montegazza,Paolo,54–55Moore,Hugh,89moralimbeciles,7mosaicism(genetic),161–62,180n13Mosher,Celia,140MotherClap’sMollyHouse(Norton),48MotionPictureAssociationofAmerica,143,179n26“TheMythoftheVaginalOrgasm”(Koedt),142

Napheys,George,130NationalCenterforHealthStatistics(UK),93NationalGeographic,35NationalHealthService(UK),91,156NaziGermany,18,60–61,90Neilans,Alison,112neurasthenia,14,47–48NewLeftofthe1960s,115–16NewWomenandFreud,136–37nonprocreativeintercourse,2–3,19,34,45–46,65nontraditionalfamilies,157–58NorthangerAbbey(Austen),98Norton,Rictor,48nuclearhouseholdgendernorm,157–58,159–61nuptiaeplantarum,10

Oakes,Kitty,159–60obligatorymarriage,68–69OfficeforNationalStatistics(UK),92TheOgilvies(Craik),99TheOldEnglishBaron(Reeve),99

268

OntheOriginofSpecies(Darwin),63–64oralsex,37,46,123–24,141,142Orff,Carl,125–26orgasm:as thegoalofsexualactivity,143;andimportancetogayandfeministcauses, 141–43; male, 131–33, 138–39; nonvaginal, 139, 140–41;simultaneousandmutual,131–34;asunitofsexualitymeasurement,138–40,143;vaginal,133,134,136–37,138,140–41,142,145

Pandora’sBaby(Henig),158paradoxia(PsychopathiaSexualis),19parent-childrelationships,28–30,157–58ParentsandFriendsofEx-Gays(PFLAG),34ParentsMagazine,89passionateromanceinmarriage,97–98,100–101,102–3.Seealsosexualdesirepatriarchalstatusquo,151–52PDE5inhibitordrugs,121–22,144–45,177n4Pediatrics,158penis-in-vaginacopulation:CatholicChurchon,124–25;andchildbearing,156–57;doxaof,37–38,123–28;Freudon,134–35;researchfocuson,xxiv–xxv;assanctionedsexualactivity,123–26,134;asultimateresultofsexualactivity,133,144

Peraldus,William,34performanceanxiety,133Perrault,Charles,95personalfulfillmentanderoticdesire,69,73–75,139PFLAG,34phlogiston,43ThePhysicalLifeofaWoman(Napheys),130Physiologiedumarriage(Balzac),129thePill,91–92,115,141placeboeffect,121Plutarch,71Pompey,71PopulationConnection(ZeroPopulationGrowth),88populationgrowth,88–89pornography,ejaculationin,144Porter,Roy,74Prange,Mark,160–61pregnancy: and contraception, 86–87, 90–91; danger of, 87–88;HavelockEllison, 85; and eugenics, 89–90; and the importanceof children, 84–86, 93–94;andmaternity-seekingwomen,12,30,46,85;andpopulationgrowth,88–89

premaritalsex,37,93,111,134,139,239Price,Michael,160PrideandPrejudice(Austen),73–74Priestley,Joseph,43procreation: and anti-contraception arguments, 86, 88; as appropriate sexuality,2–3,18–19,33–34,45,93,124–25,128–29;asbaselineofheterosexualsex,139;CatholicChurchon,xi,2–3,19,34,45;importanceof,84–86,93–94;asmarital duty, 69, 128–30, 131, 134; and population growth, 88–89; andreproductivetechnology,155–56,158;andsexualdesire,xxiii–xxiv;assubsetofallsexualactivity,xxv

TheProgressofRomance(Reeve),99promiscuity,sexual,110–11

269

propertyrightsandwomen,76–77,78–80,80–81ProtestantReformation,72,75,174n8PrussianPenalCode,16–18psychiatryandsexuality,43–44.SeealsoFreud,Sigmundpsychicimpotence,47–48PsychologyofWomen(Deutsch),137PsychopathiaSexualis(Krafft-Ebing),8–9,18–20,45,49

Quakers,76,101Quiverfullmovement,85,174n20

raceandsexuality,13–14,64,107,129–30racesuicide,14,89,91Radicalesbians,116Reeve,Clara,99–100religionandloveimagery,100–103reparativetherapyforhomosexuals,34,171n12reproduction.Seeprocreationreproductivetechnology,155–58research.SeesexologicalresearchReviewofGenetics(journal),51Ricketts,Wendell,65Robie,Walter,45–46,132Robinson,RubyDorisSmith,115RollingStones,25RomanceWritersofAmerica,100romanticlove.SeeloveRoosevelt,Theodore,14Rothman,Ellen,106Royden,Maude,110Russell,Bertrand,85

sadism,45SaintAugustine,124SaintClement,124–25same-sexmarriage,154Sanger,Margaret,88,91SatyrUponOldMaids(Anonymous),67,68scalanaturae(theGreatChainofBeing),6–7,64scienceandsexuality:andclass identity,6,129–30;empiricalgenetic/basisforsexualorientation,34,41–43,57–62;andintersexchromosomes,xx,161–62;andscientificnaming,9–11,31–33,52,147–48,170n3;statisticalapproachto,35–40.Seealsosexologicalresearch

ScienceofaNewLife(Cowan),128–29Seidman,Steven,83self-expressionandgender,xxiiself-identification,52semen,34,46,126–28,144Semenya,Caster,xiiiserialmonogamy,113sex,definedbycontext,xxSexandtheSingleGirl(GurleyBrown),67sexchromosomes,intersex,xx,161–62

270

sexdoxa:Freudon, 27–31; labeling (naming) in, 9–11, 31–33, 147–48; satire,35–36,125–26;onsexualinversion,54–56,57–62

sexeducation,31,144SexHistories(Robie),132sexism,115–17,177n42sexologicalresearch:accuracyof,38–39;ondatingculture,113–14;doxa,35–40,138–41;focusof,xxiv–xxv;hormonalinversion,51–53,58–61;onpenis-in-vagina-intercourse, xxiv–xxv; sexual orientation labeling, 51–53; statistical,35–40; and Victorian women, 140, 178n22.See also science and sexuality;specificresearcher;specificstudy

sexualactivity:andtheageofconsent,8;asbodilyfunction,3,130;generictypesbased on, 4; and the lower classes, 6, 129–30; paradoxia (PsychopathiaSexualis),19;penis-in-vagina intercourseas,123–26,133,134–35;policingof,5–6,8,16–18,143;positioning,34,37;andthepursuitofhappiness,xv,83–84,146,149;research,35–40;sanctionedformsof,123–26,134,178n18;and sexual desire, xxiii–xxiv, xxvi, 68–70, 72–75; as social activity, xxv–xxvi;andtheupperclasses,129.Seealsoprocreation;specificactivity

sexualaggression,45,46,47–48,126–28,143–44sexualanatomyandbiologicalsex,x–xiSexualBehaviorintheHumanFemale(Kinsey),36,139,140SexualBehaviorintheHumanMale(Kinsey),35–38,138–39sexualbiology.Seebiologicalsexsexualdegeneracyanddeviance:causesandfearof,46–48;definedincontrasttoheterosexuality,3,18–21,49;disordersofsexuality,8–9;managementof,36,44–45;asameasureofaman,14–15;andthePrussianPenalCode,16–18,143;andsexualorientation,45,49–50;specialized,19

sexualdesire,xxiii–xxiv,xxvi,68–70,72–75,131.Seealsopassionateromanceinmarriage

sexualdimorphism,xviiisexualinversion,16–17,51–53,54–56,57–62,170n10sexuality: anaesthesia (Psychopathia Sexualis), 19; application ofcontranaturam (against nature) terminology to, 34; and class identity, 129–30;culturaldoxaof,27,30–31,37–40,147–48,151–55;definitionsof,2–3,18–21;disordersof,8–9;formaltaxonomyof,8–9;heterodox,37;hyperaesthesia(PsychopathiaSexualis),19;andmanliness,14–15;markedcategoriesof,31–33; natural support of, 34–35; orgasms as unit ofmeasure of, 138–40, 143;paradoxia(PsychopathiaSexualis),19;andprocreation,2–3,18–19,33–34,45,93, 124–25, 128–29; and scientific naming, 9–11, 31–33, 147–48; sex asmanifestation of unruly appetites, 3; and sin in nineteenth-centuryurbanization,4–9,47–48;undifferentiated,28–29,33;Victorian,12–13,128–29,137;andwomen’sgaininsexuallatitude,111–12,116–17,131–33,142–44

sexualorientation:andtheanthropicprinciple,62–66;andbiologicalsex,ix–x;culturaldoxaof,ix,xi–xii,xiii–xiv,xv–xvi,xxvi–xxvii,42–43,152–53,155;empiricalgenetic/basisfor,34,41–43,57–62;andexternalgenitalia, ix,xiii;and genetics, ix–x, 161–62; labeling, xi–xii, xii–xiii, 51–53; andnonprocreativesex,65;andsexualdeviance,45,49–50

sexualpromiscuity,110–11sexualreassignment,xxiSexualRevolution,115,141,145–46sexualstereotypes,129–30Shelley,Martha,116Shepard,Thomas,100–101

271

Siegesbeck,Johann,10Signorile,Michelangelo,153Sigusch,Volkmar,62sin,4–9,15,47–49,69,74Smith,Adam,74Smith,DanielScott,90Smith-Rosenberg,Carroll,24–25,82SNCC(StudentNonviolentCoordinatingCommittee),115SnowWhiteandtheSevenDwarfs(film),95socialbehavior,xxv–xxvi,50–51socialconservatives,86socialDarwinism,7,64,89socialegalitarianism,76socialgender,xii–xiii,xxi–xxiii,xxvisocialhumankinds,66socialsignaling,xxiiisodomy,2,48,125TheSorrowsofYoungWerther(Goethe),98Speed,Joshua,24spermatorrhea,fearof,46Spokesman-Review(newspaper),160Stacey,Judith,157–58Stanton,ElizabethCady,128Stead,WilliamThomas,15Stein,Edward,66Steinach,Eugene,60Stekel,Wilhelm,48sterilization,compulsory,90Stockham,AliceBunker,134Stone,Lawrence,12,87,98Stopes,Marie,30,127,132,133straightbodies,identificationof,41,55–56,59,62StudentNonviolentCoordinatingCommittee(SNCC),115StudiesinthePsychologyofSex(Ellis),131suffragists,136–37SupremeCourt(US),161SystemaNaturae(Linneaeus),10

teenagers,112,144.Seealsocourtshipculture;datingcultureTerman,Lewis,36TexasFourthCourtofAppeals,161,162TexasStateSupremeCourt,161ThirdReich,18,61,90ThreeEssaysontheTheoryofSexuality(Freud),30,135–36ThroughtheLooking-Glass(Carroll),50thumb-sucking,47,172n4Tipton,Billy,159–60Tipton,Billy,Jr.,159–60“TooDarnHot”(Porter),36TheTrialsofMasculinity(McLaren),14

Ufficialidell’Onesta(OfficeofHonesty),Florence,Italy,125Ulrichs,Karl,16–17,148

272

undifferentiatedsexuality,28–29,33UnitedNations,83UniversityofLiverpool(UK),35UniversityofReading(UK),10UniversityofTexasHealthScienceCenter,160Universitywoman,82urbanizationandurbanlife,4–9,47–49,107–8Urning,17

Vaernet,Carl,61vaginalorgasm.Seeorgasm“VaginalOrgasmasaMassHystericalSurvivalResponse”(Atkinson),142vaginalrejuvenationsurgery,144vaginoplasty,162vandeVelde,Theodor,30Viagra,121–23,144–45Victorianera:andtheautonomyofwomen,83;andcompanionatemarriage,130–31;contraception,90–91;gender-normative,male-dominatedhierarchyofthe,117; on masturbation, 46, 133; and nonprocreative sexual activity, 45–46;premarital sexuality during, 106–7, 110–12, 134; on procreative sexualactivity,128–29;sexologicalresearchon,140,178n22;andsexualinversion,58;viewoffemalesexuality,12–13,128–29,137

AVindicationoftheRightsofWoman(Wollstonecraft),72virginity,29,30,39,54,72,104

Warmus,Carolyn,128Weld,Theodore,104–6Wernicke’sarea,44white-liveredwidows,128whitemasculinity,disappearanceof,14Whittlesey,Elisha,24Whittlesey,William,24Wilde,Oscar,15Winfrey,Oprah,xvi,68Wollstonecraft,Mary,72,76,98women:inarrangedmarriages,69–70;andchangesinmaritalpower,81–82;anddesire forcopulation,12,85;anddesire forsemen,126–28,144,178n8;andeconomic autonomy, 83–84; economic role in dating, 108–9, 111–12; andeducation, 82–84; and episodic same-sex desires, 154; expectations of themaritalrelationship,70–71,130–31,131–33;extramaritalsexualexperienceof,139,178n21;andFlibanserin,145;Freudiansexualdevelopmentof,136;andfrigidity, 136, 137–38; gain in sexual latitude of, 111–12, 116–17, 131–33,142–44; and individual autonomy, 83–84; in the Kinsey report (1953), 36;legalpersonhoodof,81;andmaritalcoverture,76–78;andmaternityseeking,12,30,46,85;andmiddle-classsexualitydoxa,133;andthePill,91–92,115,141;premaritalsexualexperienceof,110–12,139;andpropertyrights,76–77,78–80,80–81;andromanticheterosexuallove,116;sexualawakeningof,128–29,137;sexualcommoditizationof,111;sexualenervationofmenby,47–48,126–28,143–44,178n9;sexualpassivityof,45,46;andsimultaneousmutualorgasm,131–34;single,67–68,77,93,133;Victorian-eraviewof,12–13,128–29, 137; and virginity loss, 29, 30, 39, 54, 72, 104.See also feminism;marriage;orgasm

Wuornos,Aileen,128

273

Yalom,Marilyn,71TheYoungLady’sFriend(Farrar),103

ZeroPopulationGrowth(PopulationConnection),88

274

BeaconPress25BeaconStreet

Boston,Massachusetts02108-2892www.beacon.org

BeaconPressbooksarepublishedundertheauspicesof

theUnitarianUniversalistAssociationofCongregations.

©2012byHanneBlankAllrightsreserved

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

1514131287654321

Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperthatmeetstheuncoatedpaperANSI/NISOspecificationsforpermanenceasrevisedin1992.

TextdesignbyWilsted&TaylorPublishingServices

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Blank,Hanne.Straight:thesurprisinglyshorthistoryofheterosexuality/HanneBlank.

p.cm.

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN978-0-8070-4443-8(hardcover:alk.paper)

E-ISBN978-0-8070-4444-51.Heterosexuality—History.2.Homosexuality—History.I.Title.

HQ23.B562012

306.76’409—dc232011031432

275