What is latent bisexuality

Bisexuality and latent homosexuality

Transcript

1 Bisexuality and Latent Homosexuality Chapter (slightly shortened and edited by Adriano) from: Martin Dannecker / Reimut Reiche Der Ordinary Homosexual S. Fischer Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 1974 ISBN If it were up to Kinsey, there would be no homosexuals in the world at all , but only people who behave more or less, in the extreme case exclusively, homosexual. Deeply impressed by the result of his research that so many people have come into contact with homosexuality at some point in their lives, and that very many people have as many homosexual as heterosexual experiences during extended periods of time in their lives, Kinsey concluded that the Question about the number of homosexual and straight people in the world cannot be answered. It is only possible to determine the number of people who can be classified in each of the categories on a () heterosexual-homosexual value scale. Kinsey, for his part, refuses to refer to people who are simultaneously homosexual and heterosexual as bisexual, but more for reasons of the scientific meaning of the term. In biology, bisexual means that a single individual has biologically masculine and biologically feminine characteristics. Aside from rejecting the concept of bisexuality for the form of object choice at issue here, Kinsey is the champion of universal bisexuality par excellence. Kinsey developed a seven-point scale of the heterosexual-homosexual balance in order to record the different individual mixing ratios in the homosexual and heterosexual behavior of the people. This equilibrium theory is based, first of all, on the liberal idea that actually all people are equal, poor and rich, black and white, homosexual and heterosexual, and that all that matters is to break down prejudices and ignorance in order to create harmony and happiness the world. Second, it is based on the equally ideological notion that it is ultimately a question of personal decision whether a person behaves more homosexually or more heterosexually or one of the two. Kinsey says in all seriousness that the problem of sexual object choice is basically part of the problem of choice in general: the choice of a particular path to take, the clothes to wear, the food to eat, the place where you sleep and the countless other things you keep choosing. That's not even true for the countless things you choose every day. Anyone who chooses between two identical canteen dishes day after day in order to throw them in at the same speed day after day at the same time is doing so out of material necessity and under a compulsion that he as an individual cannot escape. Kinsey undoubtedly derived equilibrium theory from pro-

2 2 gressive motifs: as a tool in the fight against discrimination against homosexuality and homosexuals. But the fate of all benevolent liberal scientists overtook him too: wherever they subjectively fight most honestly and sharply against the ruling ideology, at the same time they objectively best serve its interests. This equilibrium theory obscures the insight into the origins of inequality among people and, above all, the insight that there are interests in the maintenance of inequality. This equilibrium theory has another catch. In order to present his theory with due empirical dignity, Kinsey has presented his data on the homosexual-heterosexual balance in a somewhat pointed manner, to say the least. For example, it says at a central point: 18 percent of men have at least as many homosexual and heterosexual experiences in their history over at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. That sounds mighty bisexual. But one must ask two questions a this sentence: on which period of life do these three years fall mainly and how great is the homosexual and especially the heterosexual activity in this period? Post-statistical analysis of the Kinsey material has shown that these three years consisted almost entirely of puberty and adolescence, that these men had very few homosexual and very few heterosexual outlets during these three years, and that most of them had their homosexual ones Stop activity after the end of adolescence. Other Kinsey conclusions about the prevalence of homosexuality and the prevalence of bisexual behavior (simultaneous homosexual and heterosexual contacts) should be treated with similar caution. The gay-heterosexual balance theory is used by some homosexuals, some liberal groups who want to represent the interests of homosexuals, and many gay friends as a justification for their false theories about bisexuality. The material and affective interests underlying these ideologies about bisexuality differ from one another, but also have a common denominator. Liberal gay friends use the theory of universal bisexuality with a politically integrative intention: Basically, we are all bisexual, even if some of us are currently only homosexual and the others are only heterosexual. Incidentally, this way of speaking does the most injustice to the homosexuals who are supposed to be protected with it. Because even if this is not stated, it is pretended that the world is full of potential sexual objects for homosexuals as well, that the whole homosexual subculture and the isolation of homosexuals from heterosexuals is actually superfluous and the whole taboo of homosexuality to change a mere prejudice of thought and through right thought. Our personal experience with manifestly heterosexual people who stubbornly operate with such theories has repeatedly left us with the following impression: the affective element of this liberal ideology is the unconscious homosexual component in those who advocate this ideology but differ from their own homosexuals

3 3 Desires and inhibitions are not allowed to give an account, because making them aware of this would be associated with too great instinctual anxiety. A similar line of argument, with a similar affective background, is also found among homosexuals. Some insist that they are bisexual, or even that they are more bisexual than this or that other person. One such case is the respondent who wrote the comment on our questionnaire: Some of the possible answers are brutal. Questionnaire is too gay, too in, too little from outside. He probably found the possible answers to the question about the types of whom he was particularly sexually attracted to be particularly brutal. There he made the comment: Damn it, it depends on the individuality, not on the type. Do you love men or do you love women are unanswerable questions for me. We naturally believe this respondent that he feels bisexual, that he is also sexually attracted to women. He has that in common with many other homosexuals. Nevertheless, the whole questionnaire shows that he is clearly homosexual, that he is very afraid of homosexuality and of sexuality in general and, above all, that he is afraid of being recognized as homosexual. Most likely he defends himself with the bisexuality theory of heterosexual practice, one can hardly deny his fear of homosexuality. When asked how sex with a man should be so that it corresponds to your wishes and ideas? he writes: getting to know each other; by chance, in everyday life. Intellectual equality. Sense of my particular sarcastic humor practice; the sexual can then be as wooden as it wants. Just not roughly. This interviewee had sex with a man for the first time when he was 12, when he was 14 he had the idea of ​​being homosexual, and when he was 20 he knew for sure that he was homosexual. He had sexual intercourse with a woman for the first time when he was 26 years old. He was friends with this woman for a while and slept with her even more often. He was 28 years old at the time of questioning. In the year before the survey, his overall drive satisfaction was composed as follows: seven percent from homosexual contacts, ninety-three percent from masturbation and zero percent from heterosexual contacts. He masturbates almost every day and thinks about existing or desired partners, partners, sometimes nothing at all. In response to the question of what he thought and felt when he knew for sure that he was homosexual, he took back the concession made at the beginning and wrote: I am bisexual. We refer to homosexuals with such problems as defensive bisexuals. In the case of other respondents, heterosexuality does not so clearly have a function that defends homosexuality or makes it tolerable. But also the questionnaires of some homosexuals who are heterosexually quite active give the impression that heterosexuality has a defensive function against homosexuality. A respondent who perceives himself as clearly homosexual and is very unhappy about it had sex with women more than fifty times in the year before the survey, i.e. at least once a week, but no more than ten times in the same year with a man. His overall drive satisfaction is made up as follows: two percent from homosexuality, 21 percent

4 4 from heterosexuality, 77 percent from masturbation. He masturbates every day and fantasizes about it: I imagine my type who is having sexual intercourse with a girl. He describes a particularly unsatisfactory sexual experience as follows: I don't like instinctual men. There are few men who would appeal to me. In bars there is almost no such partner, it is the normal male, bitter type who is normal. I just can't have sex with other guys. There have been situations where after a party or something like that I stayed with really nice people. Sex wouldn't have been urgent for me. If I was then forced to do so, it just went against the grain inside. My partner, I don't think, will notice; but it gives me nothing on the contrary dissatisfaction. At the age of 20, this respondent, who is now 21, attempted suicide; about this he writes: I did not understand the behavior of homosexuals. It just seemed abnormal to me. As a result, little contact. Bad luck with friends. My parents love me very much and I didn't want to confess any of this because I was afraid of losing my parents' home. I have now come to terms with my disposition. It is no longer an obstacle. On the Kinsey scale of homosexual heterosexual balance, this respondent would be classified as predominantly heterosexual, more homosexual. This is not an isolated case: we could easily list a dozen similar biographies, all of which show that there is no point in inferring a person's bisexuality from the quantitative ratio of his homo- and heterosexual activity. We do not doubt that there are people in our material who can easily be called bisexuals: people who can take people of the same sex as the opposite sex to their sexual objects without one direction affecting the other. For example, among those surveyed, three or four married people who consider their marriage to be happy and sexuality in marriage to be important also sleep with their wives (or other women) very often and also have extensive homosexual practices. For the majority of them, homosexuality and heterosexuality do not interfere with one another in that the women in these happy marriages do not know (or do not want to know) that their husbands are homosexual. But neither do we doubt that the bisexuality of bisexuals in our type of society is due to a mutual non-interference pact of homosexual and heterosexual inclinations. Particularly in the current form of bisexuality, reification is expressed in human object relationships and a division of labor between affects and object cathexes. Freud's formulation that the various sexual objects of the bisexual do not interfere with one another is to be taken seriously. We believe that most contemporary bisexuals function bisexually only on condition of the split affect. They attach certain affects or affect qualities (e.g. tenderness, longing, harmony) only to heterosexual and certain other affects (e.g. perverse sexual arousal states) only to homosexual objects or vice versa. In the apparent freedom of object choice and in the

5 5 A greater mix and variety of sexual objects with which bisexuals often boast can express particularly great affect control and a particularly unfortunate segregation of affects. That the object relationships between people are deformed, that all possible affective mechanisms of splitting come into play, that these splits are also reflected in splits in sexual life and that the object relationships are considered normal in which libidinal strivings succeed in one Love relationships cannot be accommodated, without disruption, all of this is part of the cultural normality of object relationships. It would be a miracle if manifest bisexuals of all people were spared such divisions. In the chapter on promiscuity the most general degradation of love life was discussed: the divergence of the tender and sensual strivings, in the chapter on perversions it was shown that similar mechanisms of division are at work in them. In doing so, we found that the splits; which are so clearly visible in promiscuity and perversion, are also effective in so-called normal love life. From this perspective, bisexuals differ from purely homosexuals and culturally normal only in one rather minor point: that they have the diverging affects and contradicting libidinal strivings and object representations, which even normal and normal homosexuals cannot concentrate on one object , distribute to male and female objects and not to only homosexual or only heterosexual objects. The whole problem of bisexuality is rather obscure to us; As for the psychological side, we are of course certain that bisexuality cannot be derived from homosexuality, but that the problem can only be dealt with through a comprehensive theory of human object relations. The common homosexual is unfortunately only available as an antiquarian. Further recommended books by Martin Dannecker, available from Das Drama der Sexualität (Athenaeum Verlag) Der Homosexuelle und die Homosexualität (European Publishing House) Hundred Years of Freud's Three Essays on Sex Theory (Psychosocial Publishing House) Sex Theory and Sexual Politics (Thieme Publishing House) Predominantly homosexual essays, comments , Speeches (Männerschwarm Verlag)