:: Sexualization of
Emotional Needs Sexual needs are natural to sexual beings.
They are the result of the biological drive and the human need for
romantic intimacy. There is nothing unhealthy or unusual about
them.
Sexualized needs, however,
run a different course. These emotional needs are expressed
indirectly through sexual activity, acted out through a sort of
sexual pantomime. The needs themselves are usually legitimate, but
the vehicle used to express them is not. We can see several
examples of sexualized emotional needs in everyday life. Plenty of
men use sex as a means of reassuring themselves that they are
virile, competent, masculine. They delight in sexually conquering
women, then bragging about their conquests to other men, causing
them to feel manly and complete. Of course, their desire for
confidence is a legitimate, understandable one. But sexually
exploiting women is an illegitimate means of satisfying that
desire. Likewise, many women are promiscuous not because they are
sex-starved, but because during sex they are made to feel special
and cared for. Again, their needs are perfectly normal, but their
method of satisfying those needs is immoral, even
dangerous.
This is true of other
emotional needs that people express indirectly. Some people, for
example, try meeting their need for comfort through food, gorging
themselves whenever they are depressed or angry. The use of food
has become their emotional outlet, and eating disorders may result.
Other people sexualize objects rather than people, finding erotic
excitement through fetishes (shoes, leather items, etc.). No one
can say exactly why people prefer those methods. All that can be
said is that somewhere along the line they found a combination of
emotional and sexual fulfillment through unnatural means. What they
are seeking — comfort, peace of mind, sexual pleasure — is not
wrong in and of itself. It’s the way they’re seeking it that is
unnatural.
Exactly how and under what
circumstances do these needs become sexualized? Why are they
sexualized in some people but not in others? No one can say for
sure. We do know that erotic feelings provide some of our earliest
experiences of pleasure. Infants and children explore their bodies,
lingering over the body parts that feel especially good. This gives
them a sense of warmth and comfort, the “good” spots providing
especially pleasurable sensations. I believe that we associate
warm, positive feelings with sexual response long before we even
know what sex is, because we associate our sexual organs with
pleasure and comfort.
It should be no surprise,
then, that when a person longs for intimacy with another, that
longing may include a desire to share sexual pleasure. For most
people, that longing is directed toward members of the opposite
sex. Normal development usually includes, as stated earlier, an
early phase of bonding with the same sex. By the time this need for
same-sex bonding has been satisfied and the child is ready for
relations with the opposite sex, he is also entering puberty with
its accompanying sexual drives. Perfect timing! Right when we’re
emotionally prepared for romantic love, our bodies are following
suit.
But what happens when we’re
not emotionally prepared for relationships with the opposite sex?
What if, by the time we reach puberty, our need for same-sex love
is still unsatisfied and predominant? Our bodies won’t wait for our
emotions to catch up. Instead, we may develop strong sexual desires
which may cross, like wires, with our emotional needs. In that
case, the emotional need for closeness and identification with
other people of our sex becomes a sexualized need, with members of
our own sex being the object of both our sexual and emotional
desires.
And so the emotional
responses to early perceptions become sexual responses as well. The
need for bonding and identifying with the same sex, accelerated by
gender identity problems, becomes a sexual desire. The need to find
an ideal male/female figure becomes a need to sexually merge with
that figure. And the need for a nurturer, mentor, or comrade
becomes a desire for sex with a nurturer, mentor, or
comrade.
All of which raises our
original question: Why you? No one can say without really knowing
both you and your background. But based on what we have seen thus
far — some prevalent theories and the experiences of others like
you — we can make some educated guesses.
It probably started with
your perceptions. You began to see yourself as a child without
resources. You know better than I exactly what resources you were
lacking: affirmation, attention, a figure to identify with, or
maybe a combination of all three. You couldn’t articulate it back
then; you only knew that something was missing. And that
“something” probably centred around a need for stronger bond with
those of your own sex. Maybe you felt different from your peers or
alienated from one or both of your parents, most noticeably the one
of your own gender. That hurt, no doubt. You wanted closeness; you
felt distance. You can’t really say, perhaps, who is to bless or
who is to blame. Maybe there was obvious rejection; maybe not. But
the result is the same either way.
Maybe you responded by
withdrawing, creating your own world of safety and fantasy. Or
perhaps you simply waited for someone special to love you and take
care of you. You may even have become angry, resolving to never
again let yourself feel hurt or rejected by another member of your
own sex. Each of these responses affected your relationships with
other boys/girls and, eventually, with other men and women. You
felt different from them, too. They may never have known your
feelings of differentness, but you were all too aware of them. They
persisted, giving rise to an aching desire to bond, to be close, to
feel accepted.
At some point, perhaps very
early, maybe later, you realized that this desire was more than
emotional. It was accompanied by sexual longings. Most likely, you
were aware of those longings before you even knew what
homosexuality was. Then one day you heard the word queer or fag,
pondered its meaning, put two and two together, and realized you
were one of “them.” It became your secret, most likely difficult to
keep and even more difficult to bear. You didn’t ask for these
feelings, but you learned that they were unacceptable to most
people. That didn’t encourage you to talk them over with anyone,
even those closest to you. Your secret became your private burden,
one you carried for years. Perhaps even to this day.
So for you, homosexuality,
whether expressed through actions or fantasies, represents
legitimate emotional needs that have not been satisfied through
normal means. You are not mentally ill, reprobate, or retarded. In
fact, you may be a highly capable adult who functions well in most
areas. But at some point you have found deep satisfaction through
homosexual feeling.
Remember, homosexuality has
served a function for you. Now is the time to do some serious,
reflective thinking. What exactly has that function been? What kind
of satisfaction have you found through your homosexual fantasies or
actions? Only you can answer these questions. When you do, you will
know not only what you have been seeking, but also what you still
need. Count on it — giving up homosexual contacts will not kill the
emotional needs that led to them in the first place. More than
ever, you need to meet them legitimately as fully as possible.
::
Emotional Responses
to Early Perceptions
The response to an early
perception of rejection may take three forms, all of which can
contribute to homosexuality: problems of gender identity, an
idealized image, or same-sex deficits. 1. Problems of gender
identity. Your gender identity is your basic sense or perception of
your masculinity or femininity. Money and Ehrhardt describe it as
“the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the
public expression of gender identity.” Your gender role is the role
your culture expects you to play as a man or woman, so of course it
varies from culture to culture. Your gender identity is determined
by your confidence in that role. Since our society places a high
premium on gender roles, your ability or inability to fulfill them
seriously affects your general well-being.
Gender Identity Disorder is
a clinical term describing a serious conflict between a person’s
assigned gender (male or female) and his desired gender. This
disorder may show itself in transsexualism, or the desire of a man
to actually be a woman, and vice versa. But Gender Identity
Disorder is a far cry from homosexuality and is not commonly found
among homosexually oriented adults.
But Dr. Friedman points out
that feelings of being unmasculine or unfeminine are common among
such adults. He proposes that unmasculinity, for example, is not
necessarily femininity, but a lack of confidence in a boy’s/man’s
own ability to fulfill the masculine role. This unmasculine or
unfeminine experience, which I consider to be a problem of gender
identity rather than a Gender Identity Disorder, has been noted by
a number of investigators. Ten studies cited by Friedman, conducted
between 1962 and 1984, have turned up the same results: a link
between problems of gender identity and adult homosexuality
(Friedman, 1988).
For example in 1981 Bell,
Weinberg, and Hammersmith interviewed 979 homosexual men and 477
heterosexual men to determine which developmental ingredients may
affect sexual orientation. Among their findings was evidence that
“gender nonconformity” (their term) was closely linked to
homosexuality:
Even among non-effeminate
homosexual men this Dislike of Boys Activities is the strongest
predictor of Adult Homosexuality. While their nonconformity may not
have been so obvious either when they were growing up or in
adulthood, it would appear that where they thought they stood on a
masculine-feminine continuum when they were young was predictive of
their eventual sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith,
Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women,
1981).
How does this problem of
gender identity come about? Like homosexuality, it is not inborn,
but acquired through interactions, perceptions and responses. A
secure masculine or feminine identity usually develops through
bonding with an older figure of the same sex, usually the father or
mother and emulating that older figure.
As mentioned earlier, the
child views the parent as “right”; that is, if the parent seems to
reject the child, the child assume it’s his fault, not the
parent’s. This can undermine a child’s confidence not only as a
person but also as a boy or girl. Problems of gender identity,
then, begin with the child’s belief that he is unacceptable to the
parent of his sex, and therefore unacceptable to all members of his
sex. This robs him of confidence to fulfil his gender role, having
felt no invitation to emulate and identify with his father or she
with her mother, leading to acute feelings of unmasculinity or
unfemininity.
These feelings are confirmed
during later development. After all, confidence with peers is
largely determined by confidence at home. So if a boy feels
ill-equipped to deal with other boys through traditional masculine
activities, he will be inclined to avoid those activities, which
disrupts his abilities to bond with other boys, which reinforces
his belief that he is unmasculine.
2. Idealized image. It’s not
uncommon for children to idealize their parents; in fact, it’s
uncommon for them not to. After all, Daddy looks pretty big and
powerful to a little boy, and Mommy looks beautiful and competent
to a little girl. Children naturally want to be like thier same-sex
parents, at least for a time, They see them as powerful, wise, and
ideal.
Normal development allows
for a gradual disappointment in our parents. If you’re a parent you
know that, sooner or later, you’re going to blow it. You cannot
possibly be the perfect mom or dad your kids want you to be. So
eventually, to some degree, they will be disappointed in you just
as, to some degree, you have been disappointed in your own
parents.
That is actually good for
us, because through disappointment we become more realistic and
mature. We learn through this disappointment to accept people’s
limitations. And so a child’s ideal image of his father or mother
gradually changes to a more realistic viewpoint. As he grows, he is
able to see his parents’ imperfections, but since he is growing
emotionally as well as physically, he can handle the knowledge that
they are not perfect. That is basic process: As we grow,
biologically and emotionally, we learn to accept hard realities
like death, injustice, and our parents’ imperfections. The more we
mature, the better able we are to let go of our early
idealism.
At times, through, this
process is aborted by early trauma. If a child is shocked by a
sudden rejection from a parent or a parent’s early disappearnace,
he might not have the capacity to handle the loss. Instead of
gradually relinquishing the ideal image he had of his father, he
may cling to it, hoping to someday find it again in somebody
else.
3. Same-sex deficits. There
is a period of life, usually between early childhood and
preadolescence, during which we almost exclusively seek out members
of our own sex. Boys cluster with boys, and girls cling to each
other. Sometimes kids express an almost-lighthearted contempt for
each other. Little boys think girls are “weird”; the girls think
the little boys have “cooties.” That’s normal, even necessary. Our
identity as male or female is solidified when we bond with our own
gender. Only when our need for bonding with the same sex has been
fulfilled can we move on to relationships with the opposite
sex.
During this period I believe
there are three kinds of relationships with our own sex that we
especially need: a nurturer, a mentor, and a comrade.
Our same-sex nurturer will
usually be our parent of the same sex. This parent welcomes us to
bond with him, making us feel comfortable and accepted in his
presence. Our relationship with him is marked by physical
affection, play, and intimate caring. He delights in us, giving us
a sense of specialness. As we become secure in his love, we develop
an early conviction that we’re okay as males or females, perfectly
acceptable and lovable to our same-sex nurturer and therefore to
other members of our own sex.
Our same-sex mentor may also
be a parent, or perhaps an instructor, coach, music teacher, older
child, or any adult figure who takes a special interest in us.
Through our mentor we are gradually initiated into our gender role.
No matter what technical role our mentor plays (teacher, coach, big
brother, etc.) our relationship with him increases our confidence
with members of our sex outside of our family. His relationship is
less nurturing and more instructional. He expects more out of us
than our nurturer and challenges us to further develop our
masculinity. He provides us with a sort of “rite of
passage.”
Same-sex comrades are vital
to a healthy personality. Our comrades mirror us, compete with us,
bond with us, and make us feel like “one of the guys.” We grow with
them, sharing our experiences of school, puberty, dating, social
struggles, and so forth. They stabilize us. And our relationship
with comrades spurs us on, because we inevitably compare ourselves
to them, creating a healthy competition. Through our comrades we
learn to feel good about ourselves and comfortable with our own
sex.
If we lack any or all of
these relationships, we develop what psychologist Elizabeth Moberly
calls “same-sex deficits.” In her book Homosexuality: A New
Christian Ethic she stresses the importance of same-sex love
between parent and child, and theorizes that the homosexual urge is
an attempt to make up for deficiencies in the early father-son,
mother-daughter relationship.
Because of those
deficiencies, a child may feel that the normal avenues for same-sex
love (nurturing, mentoring, comradeship) are not available to him.
He thinks, because of parental rejections, that he is not qualified
to engage in normal friendships with his peers. This prohibits the
very thing he needs the most: love from and closeness to members of
the same sex. He wants it so badly, yet he feels that if he tries
to get it he will experience further rejection. This leaves him in
a quandary: legitimate same-sex intimacy has become the thing he
wants the most, yet he avoids the normal activities that provide it
because he feels as though any attempts to participate in those
activities will fail, leaving him lonely and in pain.
He responds with what
Moberly calls “defensive detachment.” He detaches himself from his
peers and the parent of the same sex because attempting to relate
to them causes him pain. Although such relating could be the source
of healing for him, he sees it as threatening, avoiding it because
he refuses to reexperience the hurt he is sure will
come.
He may comfort himself with
isolation or by devaluing his father and peers (”They’re jerks
anyway. Who needs them?”), often rejecting the very masculinity
they symbolize. In a way, this protective device works well. By
taking no chances, he avoids further rejection. At least he remains
emotionally safe.
But his “safety zone” of
isolation doesn’t kill his ever-deepening need for intimacy. In
fact, the more he isolates himself, the stronger that need grows.
This is not homosexuality, mind you; rather, it is the legitimate,
normal need for bonding that all of us have experienced. In this
case, though, the need has grown and remained unsatisfied. In each
of the above cases, certain emotional responses were influenced by
the perceptions a child had of himself, his parents, and others of
his sex. And these responses inevitably gave way to deep and
unsatisfied needs. Emotional response to early perceptions, whether
they take the form of gender identity problems, idealized images,
or same-sex deficits, leave a child with specific needs for
intimacy with his own sex.
I think you have a big problem about being self-righteous. Go
figure which is greater, your god or your righteousness.
