The great lesson to be learned from Freud's experience is related to the collective almost always winning out over the individual. To be acceptable, or be great and successful, and to make money, any truth to be denied is not to be spoken. As it was so well embodied in the title of Dr. Alice Miller's third book, the unspoken commandment has been "THOU SHALT NOT BE AWARE." Although this was highlighted with respect to the sexual abuse of children, it applies to almost every significant sexual reality targeted for understanding by psychiatrists and psychologists during this century.
Freud is great because he taught us that the denial of truth is not only rewarded, but that it may even be used as a form of therapy. Up to the 1970s, the traditional treatment given to women reporting sexual abuse as children was have them deny the experienced reality. Basically, the denial of truth was the cure for their psychiatric problems and the therapy was made possible by a widely accepted theory Freud published in 1905. All little girls apparently wanted to be sexually penetrated by their fathers (or stepfathers) and, because some little girls desperately wanted this, they had related fantasies and grew up believing that their fantasies had been real events.
The denial - or destruction - of truth has been an important part of the history of psychiatry and psychology, but Freud didn't deny all truths. For example, he kept the idea that all males are at least bisexual, as I recognized to be a fact of life as a child, and there is considerable anthropological knowledge supporting the conclusion. This truth, however, was to also to be destroyed, and the feat was accomplished by psychiatrists after Freud died because our society has believed that homosexuality should not exist; for some people, it must not exist! It was therefore very important that bisexuality not be as common as Freud asserted, and many were probably hoping for bisexuality's non-existence.
From the 1930s to the 1960s, a psychiatric war had been intensifying against homosexuality, leading to the formal "mental disorder" label for homosexuals in the early 1950s, and to cures for homosexuality. Attempting such cures, however, was against Freud's advice. He believed that society should accept homosexuals, that they were not mentally disordered, and that professionals should not seek to cure them because it was not possible. According to Lewes (1988), psychiatrists proposing cures for - the destruction of - homosexuals were essentially "hate-mongering" individuals as rendered in their writings (50: 116).
Well known psychiatrists described homosexuals in every negative term imaginable, such as accusing "passive homosexuals" of "trying to extinguish the race," thus justifying society's "violent feelings towards him and... [society therefore] taking steps against him" (50: 115). Homosexual males were compared to the Nazis by one psychiatrist (50: 116) and another went as far as comparing the Nazi hatred for the Jews to the homosexuals "'notorious' hatred for women" (50: 149). Another psychiatrist firmly believed homosexuals to be involved in a "conspiracy" and that homosexuals recruited children (50: 154). As these accusations were being published, psychiatrists who may have objected to such "unprofessional conduct" remained silent; Lewes deemed this to be "shocking" (50: 114) and "entirely antithetical to the ethical basis of psychoanalysis as a humane discipline" (50: 116).
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, evil feminists were demonstrating against all the abuses men inflicted on females, and they were also documenting the reality of child sexual abuse. This was the first significant attack on psychiatrists who had been denying an important reality and it soon led to the general acceptance of yet another common male abuse of females beginning at a very young age: child sexual abuse. Gay males and lesbians were also demonstrating against psychiatrists in very direct ways. They were requesting an investigation of THE FACTS and wanted psychiatrists to end their general blind acceptance of homosexuality-related information and ideas produced by the hate-mongering psychiatrists who had effectively guided the policies of psychiatric and psychological organizations.
Since the 1930s, psychiatrists had embarked on a mission to destroy homosexuals but Kinsey (1948) had put a kink in their objective. His extensive data revealed that 37 percent of males reported having had sex to orgasm with a male, and that another 13 percent had related desires not yet acted on. This admission rate could have been used to validate Freud's belief in universal human "bisexuality" but the opposite occurred. Not one professional stated something like: Given the high level of homohatred in our society - probably producing high levels of lying, denial, and repression - having 50 percent of males admit to such a taboo self-reality is an incredible accomplishment because it was well known that such an unwelcome reality could be totally repressed. Kinsey had therefore established the degree to which males may be repressing the "homosexual" component of Self, but this conceptualization of the situation was ignored.
The professional discourse CENTERED on destroying Freud's bisexuality theory and professionals like Ovesey (1955) participated in the process. He managed to change Freud's "homosexual anxiety" to "pseudohomosexual anxiety" (54: 15). The message was: Yes, men do have homosexual fantasies but it doesn't mean they are homosexual in any way. These fantasies simply represent other conflicts being expressed in sexual language. Later, similar logic would be used to fabricate the Rape is not a sexual act! ideology. Apparently, rape is only the expression of other non-sexual problems.
With this new conceptualization of apparently non-sexual sexual activities and manifested desires producing intense orgasms for males, a proverbial "killing of two birds - two truths - with one stone" was being accomplished, and it produced gems like Nancy Friday's 1980 book MEN IN LOVE. Its subtitle, "Men's Sexual Fantasies. The Triumph of Love Over Rage " embodied the revelation that "RAGE" - reflecting an intense hatred for women - was the rule in male sexual fantasies, but that men's [assumed] love for women somehow triumphs! Yet, if we tallied all acts of hatred men have inflicted on women over the centuries, such as wife battery and rape, other rapes, various sexual abuses, plus all of men's social, legal, and religious abuses of women, a state of near insanity would be required to conclude: "This is the triumph of love over rage." Furthermore, Friday also made it clear that the numerous males reporting homosexual fantasies, but believing themselves to be 100 percent heterosexuals, were 100 percent heterosexual because such fantasies were insignificant! On the other hand, heterosexual fantasies, representing [normal] desires for women were always significant.
This activity reeks of "heterosexual recruiting" possibly motivated by the belief that male homosexuality in our society should be reduced to a minimum, or maybe even exterminated as a recognized reality. Dr. Marmor (1980) ventured into this direction by giving a high degree of credibility to Ovesey's "pseudohomosexuality" theory without acknowledging the experiences of many gay males. If there is a "pseudo" sexuality possible in our homohating and heterosexist society - characterized by compulsory heterosexuality - it would be the many pseudoheterosexualities I and others gay males have experienced, and the heterosexualities of other males described in this document. Being apparently unaware of this fact, Marmor noted that the Kinsey data obviously refutes Freud's bisexuality theory because the homosexual element existed in only 50 percent of Kinsey's large male sample (54: 14-15). To make this conclusion, however, Marmor had ignored the obvious. The 50 percent was an admission rate and a body of psychiatric knowledge would define the 50% to be a minimum. Therefore, Freud had not been proven wrong by the Kinsey data.
By the early 1970s, there were people wanting to know if anything had changed since Kinsey revolutionary research work. Playboy had money to pay for such research and approached the Kinsey Institute. The Institute gave 'a lack of time and human resources' as reasons for refusing (38: XII), but the real reason may have been a wish to avoid repeating the Kinsey study which had almost caused the destruction of the Institute. To this date, the Institute has not repeated such a study, and the American government has also repeatedly refused to allocate money to do a Kinsey-like study, even if the knowledge has been desperately needed to better understand the spread of AIDS. As an alternative, Playboy hired Morton Hunt - a homophobe - to do the work. Such people, however, will inject bias in their research so that, if they feel that homosexuality should not exist, they will somehow create the desired results. This outcome was accomplished with the sampling method used in 1972 when homosexuality was a crime in most American states and it was still deemed to be a mental disorder by psychiatrists. Most gay males at the time were living in fear and in well sealed or guarded closets.
Potential study subjects were telephoned and "asked to participate anonymously in small, private, panel discussions of present trends in American sexual behavior, for the benefit of a group of behavioral researchers." If we now assume ourselves to be a closeted gay male living in terror of being discovered, or even being afraid to discuss sexual matter with strangers, and especially with people from our own city we could be meeting again, we would probably decline the offer and therefore become part of the 80% of people contacted who refused to participate in the study (38: 17). Thus, most homosexuals, and probably most bisexuals, were weeded out of the study sample, as reflected in the results. Only about 11 percent of males reported (admitted to) having sex with a male, compared to Kinsey's 37 percent, and only 1 percent reported being homosexual compared to Kinsey's 10 percent estimated on the basis of the Kinsey's sexual orientation scale (38: 312-313).
The results caused Hunt to have some credibility problems, thus producing an interesting explanation. He first acknowledged the likelihood that "hard-core homosexuals [were] missed," something like "2 percent of the adult population," but this outcome was not deemed important. He then cited a researcher stating that Kinsey's 10 percent should be more like "2 to 3 percent" and Voilà! His one percent was therefore very close to reality! Reading this made Hunt's "agenda" quite transparent and his results would make it almost impossible to conceive the possibility that in some American communities, as discovered by Kinsey, almost all adolescent males were involved in homosexual activities. I was brought up in such a neighborhood, have met other gay males who had similar experiences, and similar information is also reported in studies of gay males. Unfortunately, research even worse than Hunt's endeavor was later produced in Canada and published as The Canada Youth and AIDS Study (1988).
Their wonderful whole-class samples produced a total of 38,000 Canadian youths studied but researchers didn't ask one question about homosexual activity to adolescent males in grades 7, 9, and 11! They only asked anal and oral sex questions to first year college students,, but forgot to solicit the information needed to establish if these sexual activities were heterosexual or homosexual. Furthermore, they only asked college students the question: "Are you heterosexual? Bisexual? Homosexual?"All researchers familiar with homosexuality know that, for many gay males, the "homosexual" self-label often comes only years after an individual has been engaging in homo-sex. For example, in first year university, and after having had hundreds of homosexual experiences, I would have answered "heterosexual" to their question. Using Kinsey's method, however - given that it is largely based on one's sexual activities and is the most important information needed if researchers are claiming to be concerned about AIDS - would have correctly classified me to be homosexual years before I would have ever accepted the homosexual label. This modern Canadian study therefore reported, with vague apologies, that only one percent of the adolescent male population is homosexual and one percent is bisexual (43: 86-87).
Given such created 'facts' - a delusion - it in no wonder that I discovered educators and other professionals interviewed in 1991 were not looking at any social problem, including youth suicide, in "homosexual" or "repressed homosexual" terms. Who, however, is going to pay for such a gross denial of reality? Who benefits? Who benefited when the sexual abuse of little girls was a denied reality? What was the cure for these women? It was to have them accept that reality was unreal, just like reality denial was also to be the cure for homosexuality. Ditto for the cure women often administered to themselves when they were raped and/or battered by their husbands. Russell (1982) reported that many of these women repress the memory of the event(s) so that it wouldn't interfere with the lie to be believed: they are 'loved' by their husbands. Nancy Friday was also in this category, and so were most female psychiatrists and psychologist of the past.
One of the greatest reality denial occurring in the 1980s, however, is still to be recognized. It was being accomplished by the researchers who were exposing average [self-defined heterosexual] university males to rape pornography. The objective was to document the effect(s) exposure to rape pornography would have on these males because certain social groups, such as feminists and right wing religions, wanted pornography (especially the violent, abusive, and degrading kind) to be banned. The research, carried out in Canada, the United States, and West Germany, always produced one consistent result: average young adult heterosexual male university students are highly sexually stimulated by depictions of men raping women. Therefore, these men are internally rewarded - with sexual stimulation and orgasms - when they see men performing rapes ("unfinished murders") on women.
Schmidt (1975) also reported an interesting result. Some heterosexual males had a very low know thyself level made apparent with his documentation of their responses when they discovered their sexual natures via being highly sexually stimulated while viewing abuse-of-women pornography. They experienced "guilt and dismay that they were stimulated by aggressive sexual activities incompatible with their conscious ideas of sexuality" (84: 359). They had discovered an unwelcome self-reality, and such discoveries do have predictable effects. Many of the studied males would have likely given a "0" rating to their "likelihood of raping a woman" before exposure to rape pornography, but how would they have rated their rape potential after they had acquired more knowledge about their real sexual selves? If they were asked to be honest?
Another result is also expected after men have made self-discoveries at odds with their conscious beliefs about themselves. It is interesting to see wife batterers, for example, increasingly re-label acts of hatred as acts of love, because hating women is a threatening idea with "homosexual" implications, and these men must therefore do everything possible (even if completely illogical) to keep believing they love women when the evidence indicates otherwise. The imperative, however, also produces what researchers call "rape myths," such as believing that "Women want to be raped!" or that "A woman will end up enjoying the rape!" Therefore, as expected, rape pornography researchers reported that, after males were exposed to rape pornography, there was an increase in their beliefs in rape myths. There were also decreases in the penalties these men would give to men convicted of rape! The results, however, would likely be the consequence of more males in the tested samples seeing that they could be rapists and, as batterers and rapists typically do, a woman is to blame when men do such things. Sadly, and on a repeated basis in magazine articles and on television, Canadian researchers like James Check stated that males, after viewing rape pornography, manifested more callous attitudes toward women; their reported likelihood of raping women had also increased. No explanations, however, were given to explain these results, not even in their research papers - except for the insinuation that exposure to rape pornography was responsible for this..
In the end, the only theory to be inadvertently proven by rape-pornography research results was the firm Freudian belief that the average heterosexual male is a sexual sadist, because only males harboring a sadistic sexuality would be highly stimulated by watching films of women being raped. In our society, however, such knowledge - greatly threatening the belief that men love women - comes under the "THOU SHALT NOT BE AWARE" commandment dominating the fields of psychiatry and psychology; and it was therefore only a matter of time before social psychologists doing the research would act in accordance to the law. The same law also caused the media - ruled by heterosexual males and closeted gay males often pretending to be heterosexual - to never give front or back page coverage to the discovery: "FREUD CORRECT! AVERAGE HETEROSEXUAL MALES ARE SEXUAL SADISTS! MEN'S LOVE FOR WOMEN MAY BE A LIE!"
Predictably, such knowledge was to be destroyed and I wondered how these socially indoctrinated researchers would be orchestrating the funeral and burial! Their work had been done to find a cause for the "banning porn" advocates who successfully used such research results to increasing the censorship of pornography, including gay pornography! As a gay individual, however, I know that most (all?) gay males would laugh at the suggestion that they became homosexual because they watched gay pornography. Yet, gay sex has traditionally been an infinitely greater taboo - and even a greater evil - than raping a woman ever was. Why then have so many people acquired the notion that males would rape women because they watched pornography?
Pornography (including rape) is a great teacher, but not because it could ever cause a male to rape women. In fact, pornography is only what June Callwood and other feminists noted it to be in the 1985 Canadian book, Women Against Censorship, edited by Varda Burtsyn. Pornography is simply the messenger bringing bad news, and "the bad news" has been the discovery of the type of pornography many men enjoy (given their high sexual stimulation), but the same scenarios (rape to rape-torture and even rape-murder scenarios) may also be present in men's sexual fantasies when masturbating. Furthermore, many men will not tell their wives they are fantasizing about raping her, beating her up, or even killing her (or another woman), when they are pretending to be "making love." A significant numbers of males, however, do make their "rape-of-women" sexual fantasies into reality.
By 1988, the rape pornography researchers had met for a major conference in Montreal and there was a press release titled "Flaws revealed in porn theories" in the Calgary Herald. There certainly were FLAWS in the research! In fact, everything they had sought to prove was a grand deception! The fact that most heterosexual males were highly sexually stimulated by rape pornography, however, was not a flaw! Nor was their reports of being troubled by the discoveries made about themselves. Sadly, but predictably, most researchers usually did not bother to record such feelings, nor explore this most important aspect of their research work. Yet, the research had produced results duplicating what I had observed from 1981 to 1983 while working at a mine in the Arctic. In the recreation hall, pornography was often viewed, but it had to be ordered and shipped in. When males watched the previews, they would most loudly request the pornography depicting rape or rape-like scenes.
It is tragic that many women, including many feminists, have believed that censoring pornography - or even hiding pornography from view - will somehow lessen the violence and sexual violence so many men have traditionally inflicted on women. In fact, given all the interrelated factors implicated in men's violence toward women - and there are more of these than the ones noted in this document - it is likely that violence against women will continue to escalate as reflected in the fact that we now produce about 100 times more serial murderers of women than we did about 50 years ago.
Understanding some of the major reasons why men are violent with women would certainly help, but the best understanding women have produced to date essentially replicates what "prohibition women" understood about men: NOTHING! They had accepted the grand delusion that men battered their wives because they drank alcohol! Now, men sexually-related violence toward women was believed to be caused by viewing pornography. Obviously, the "THOU SHALL NOT BE AWARE" commandment is powerful, especially for women, and it has certainly dominated the twentieth century, especially in the social sciences.
In the war men have traditionally
waged against women, as in all wars, the first and most consistent casualty
has always been "the truth." Therefore, history is telling
us to be vigilant and suspicious of all therapists, even if they are women.
What may appear to be "helping someone," especially if human sexuality
is involved, may be having the opposite result. These modern horrors, however,
will be for the future generation to document and WE
will be asked: "How could you have done such horrible things?" By then,
maybe, people will understand, and WE will hopefully
have stopped repeating our history.