[Book under review — title illegible], The Women's Press, £4.95.
This is an exciting book to read. It recalls the optimistic aspirations of sexual freedom of the young women's liberation movement, and submits them to a critical re-appraisal in the light of a decade of practice. Many of the essays challenge present day feminist morality forcing a relook at our own sexual practice.
The dominant theme of the essays is an attack on idealism about relationships. In contrast to the stress of recent feminist writings on male violence as somehow intrinsic to heterosexual relations these essays argue for a more positive and pluralistic approach to women's (and in passing, men's) sexuality. Coming to terms with the fact that every form of our sexuality — heterosexuality, celibacy, [lesbianism — is socially con]structed, with no 'escape' to a perfect female form of eroticism where we can evade the pernicious influence of the dominant male-orientated culture, the book's conclusions are optimistic about radical change in relations between and among the sexes. Disappointingly however it does not delve in any detail into what strategies for change flow from the analysis put forward.
Lynne Segal in 'Sensual Uncertainty or Why the Clitoris is not Enough' takes apart Masters and Johnson, the Hite report and many of the permissive values of the sixties. Lynne points out how useful feminists found these sexologists' attack on the 'phallic fallacies' of the vaginal orgasm as the natural sexual expression of the adult woman. But did the rediscovery of the clitoris and the public acceptance of female masturbation establish an authentic female sexuality? Lynne argues no. Although they encouraged women to explore their sexuality, their focus on sexual technique — the flick of the wrist — to the exclusion of viewing sexual desire as part of social relationships did not get to the heart of the problem: the culture of masculinity which still dominates in bed, orgasm or no orgasm.
Anja Meulenbelt in Our Bodies Ourselves discovered a fundamental female sexuality somehow more 'natural' because it's cuddly and unconnected to genital penetration. But, as Lynne asks, how is it possible for this to be 'natural' when all women's sexual experiences are formed and reproduced within a male culture? What about our masochistic fantasies? Do these not tell us that even in bed, an 'authentic female sexuality' has not yet been attained? And perhaps this also helps to explain women's erotic daydreams and the ambivalence of feminists towards pornography, because although it degrades us it may also titillate us in some instances. Women often fantasise about gaining power through the seduction [of] the strong. [It is] unsurprising given the association of weakness with femininity and strength with masculinity. But the irrational is not confined to women: 'By far the most common service politicians demand from call-girls is to be beaten'. Only by exploring the irrationality of our emotions can we come to terms with our sexuality. Orgasms, Lynne concludes, will never on their own obliterate the isolation and emptiness we feel in the rest of our lives.
Wendy Holloway in 'Heterosexual Power and Desire for the Other looks at the social construction of men's sexuality. The phrase 'all men are little boys' is given a new and interesting interpretation in this essay. Fear of being 'tied down' allowed many young men in the sixties and seventies to pursue a free-[illegible] love life. The assumed equality of women to do the same gave justification to men of these practices. Wendy argues that men's fear of feeling strongly about women leads them to project their fears onto women for being 'possessive': 'Martin, "Once you've opened yourself, once you've shown the other person that you need them, then you've made yourself incredibly vulnerable".' Men do want to be loved, and this exposes their vulnerability to women. Men's defence mechanism is to project their fears of not [being invulnerable, their own] vulnerability onto women, because their own vulnerability conflicts with men's social role.
But the most explicit attack on an idealist view of sexuality comes from Elizabeth Wilson in 'I'll Climb the Staircase to Heaven: Lesbianism in the Seventies'. Here she develops Alexander Kollantai's polemic in the 'Social Basis of the Woman Question' against the utopian lifestylism of bourgeois feminists in her day. Nearly 80 years ago, she explained the force of the culture of masculinity and the power of bourgeois morality in relationships: 'Before these formulas of "free relationships" and "free love" can become practice, it is above all necessary that a fundamental reform of all social relationships between people take place; furthermore the moral and sexual norms and the whole psychology of mankind would have to undergo a thorough evolution. Is the contemporary person psychologically able to cope with "free love"?'
Elizabeth Wilson argues that the idea that sexual passion represents the core of the individual is not new and holds no threats for the capitalist system. Western bourgeois values are founded upon 'possessive individualism'. She reiterates Kollantai's point arguing against the view of many feminists that sexual subordination is the source of women's inequality; '...material provision — refuges for battered women, different divorce laws — may change sexual practice every bit as successfully as "liberating" our sexuality.' I would go further and add that only by totally restructuring relations between men and women and eventually replacing the family will women achieve their sexual liberation. And that can only be achieved on the basis of abolishing the capitalist order.
But her polemic with the theorists of Revolutionary Feminism is useful. Political lesbianism — the decision to reject sex with men because of the subordination to men that heterosexual relations impose in our society comes up for criticism. Is it right to view [such] power as the 'flowering of real womanhood'? The tendency in revolutionary feminist definitions to play down the sexual aspect of lesbianism and replace it with a celebration of bonding between women obviously annoys Elizabeth. She also takes issue with the 'technicist' view that women have sex with women simply because women's bodies [illegible] lesbian literature pointing out that there were positive aspects to lesbian and homosexual culture before the rise of the modern women's liberation movement. Books like Sita and Flying by Kate Millett are also referred to to point out the self-punishing aspects of lesbianism and how this forces some women to revert to men. Reaffirming the importance of sexual desire in lesbian relationships she argues that, 'to deprive lesbianism of its aura of the forbidden may for some women rob it of its charm'. Her emphasis is on the similarities between heterosexual and lesbian desire. Reich and the sixties' radicals were wrong to believe that 'the fullest orgasm is devoid of fantasy'.
There are many other provocative essays. Lucy Goodwin describes how the experience of being out of control when we 'fall' in love masks the fact that we create our own love affairs. By transferring our passion for individuals into a passion for life itself we would not tie ourselves up in so many knots. Tricia Bickerton explains that because women are still struggling for an adult status in our society this can [be] a painful experience. But it can also be a time when women discover their own needs and perhaps their own creativity. Her reference to the courage needed in today's economic climate for women to decide on single motherhood made me aware of an absence in the book.
The assumption of many of the writers is that women have financial independence, educational qualifications and the freedom to experiment with their sex lives. Absent is the experience of working class women whose morality would sharply contrast with the views of Sue Cartledge in 'Duty and Desire', but whose practicality about matters of sex would be nonetheless refreshing. Idealism about sexual relations is a wrong approach, so how do we change people's sex lives? Don't we need to change society to change the way we live?
Any ambiguity on this point will be picked on by the alert feminists who support the SDP and write in the pages of The Guardian. Jill Tweedie reviewing The Left and the Erotic sneers at Lenin and Kollantai, lumping them with the lack of debate in the British Communist Party about personal matters before the rise of the modern women's liberation movement. Her point of view is dishonest and ruthless: both the Left and the Right are totalitarian and only if women drift away from Marxism can they come to terms with sexuality. This rubbish has to be knocked on the head. Her polemic is with the barren 'Marxism' of the Soviet variety that dominated the workers' movement so monolithically after the rise of Stalinism and stifled the debate on anything inside the communist movement.
A revival of debate on these questions began with the Prague S[pring] of '68 and the second wave of [feminism] to be continued among revolutionary Marxists today if the work of Bebel, Engels, Zetkin and Kollantai is to be developed and applied to today's conditions. Revolutionary Marxists have a duty to prove that our struggle to change the world places us in the very best position to discuss the question of sex.
VALERIE COULTAS writes for Socialist Action and is active in the women's movement.