Hysterical Sexuality

As the week has progressed since Stephen Fry made his ‘sex’ announcement that was then retracted and then counter argued and then reviewed and then analysed and dissected and rebuked, there has been an abundance of writers, both professional and amateur, making comments about the subject matter and the National Treasure’s right to open his mouth on the subject.

I include myself amongst them as I too made comment immediately after Stephen had done his business.

I started that blog with “Oh Stephen, Stephen, Stephen” and to an extent, I still stand by this exasperation but possibly not for the same reason as others have protested. I happen to think that Stephen is onto something. I happen to think that there are women who do not like sex. I happen to think there are men who feel that their women are only having sex with them out of duty rather than desire.

I happen to think that because I know people who do just that.

However, where Stephen and I part company is the reasons for this sexual inertia, or even whether this sexual inertia exists.

I also happen to believe that the reason some of these women do not like sex or are indifferent to it is because they have never had the opportunity to explore their own sexuality. I happen to believe that if women had been enabled to enjoy their sexuality generations ago, then we would have had a much healthier regard for sex in this country and certainly would not be in a situation where a gay man could even question a woman’s love of sex.

As if by magic to back my thoughts up, there are appeared in the paper today a reminder of how treatment for the sexually hysterical was developed in the late 1800s; something that Zenpuss wrote about over two years ago.

http://zenpuss.blogspot.com/2008/05/hysteria-stress-and-knowing-your-body.html

Or is it ‘by magic’ that these things appear?

If there is one thing I would certainly like to congratulate Mr. Fry on is his ability to be the Zeitgeist. Perhaps the ‘hysteria’ article only appeared so prominently because of Stephen Fry’s intervention last week. Admittedly, the article is about a film that would be appearing in our cinemas with or without the National Treasure’s comments but female sexuality suddenly seems to be the flavour of the month.

Thank goodness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/07/vibrator-victorian-women-film-hysteria

The story is about a Dr Joseph Mortimer Granville who “accidentally” invented the first vibrator whilst treating women for hysteria, depression, stress, sleeplessness and an unwillingness to go coital with their husbands. The patients submitted themselves to this electronic stimulation which resulted in “hysterical paroxysm” or orgasms to you and me.

1880 folks and we still cannot fully acknowledge the presence of a vaginal orgasm!

“There is something about that time in the 1880s, and just how strict the cultural codes were, that makes it funny” states US director Tanya Wexler. “Everyone pretended it was a medical thing, not a sexual thing, or rather, they really believed it”.

As I said, 1880 and how far exactly have we travelled.

Personally, Ms Wexler, I find it highly un-amusing that the strict cultural codes were in place and to some extent are still so today.

For example, how many “couples” do you think are going to see this film together, squirming in their seats as they worry about whether their hidden vibe is about to be found or whether there is a hidden vibrator at all, or indeed why there isn’t a vibrator that they are using together?

Mr. Fry could not possibly have made his comments if there was enough knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the female orgasm and female sexuality. He can only say such things because of the huge amount of ignorance that veils this all important subject. So it is far from amusing in my opinion.

And whilst we are on the subject of combining Fry, hysteria and sex let us consider one other aspect of this cohesive little story.

Stephen Fry, by his own admission, suffers from depression; manic depression in fact. He has been diagnosed as bi-polar. This is a debilitating illness where sufferer’s inertia invades every aspect of their lives. Left untreated it does not seem to be able to self-correct or disappear. However, with the support of drugs, the patient can improve.

But it is not just down to drugs. Lifestyle changes can also help the sufferer.

Is it possible that Stephen Fry is less “hysterical”, calmer and more contented now that he has embraced his sexuality and called time on his years of abstinence?

Please do not misinterpret this. I am not suggesting that the only way that manic depressives can improve is by having large quantities of sex, but it may just help. After all, the Hysteria work of Dr. Granville was successful. These women were allegedly cured of their hysteria once they had a regular dose of the vibrator.

Makes you think doesn’t it. I know that my own hysteria, of which there is a plenty, is certainly placated by a healthy dose of sex. I know that my own stress levels, paranoia and emotional unsteadiness are grossly exacerbated when I have not had regular orgasms, and I would even go as far as to say regular vaginal orgasms.

I need sex. I need healthy, regular, fully orgasmic sex. I need it now, I needed it yesterday and I will need it tomorrow. Fact.

But that is just me. I’m not a raving nymphomaniac as much as I would like to think I am. I am just a woman in her forties who has embraced sexuality and the need and desire for sex in her life. I need love and consideration too, and healthy relationships but that is almost another matter. What I definitely need is something that triggers that entire glorious serotonin rumbling through my systems. I need to be transcend the physical and be blasted into a surreal perfection of blissed out loveliness that only comes from damn, fine fucking, or making love, if you prefer.

Which brings me to my next extract.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/stephen-fry-sexuality-victoria-coren

Talking of National Treasures, Victoria Coren is fast becoming one.

In this article, Victoria states that the fact that sexuality is such an individual thing. In her typical ‘hysterical’ and amusing way, she suggests that some of us might like to go cruising in the nude on Hampstead Heath (taking her scarf with her because it is November!). She also suggests that some of us might be interested in introducing pineapples into our sexual encounter but you could have two people who come together and both want sex involving a pineapple, only they have completely different ways (and ends – ooh er) of using the pineapple.

Sex is very individual.

To that extent, she argues, that Fry was both right and wrong, which is why there are so many opportunities to agree and disagree with him. There are women who don’t like sex. There are men who worry that their women do not like sex. There are women who have sex because that is the price one has to pay for the lifestyle that comes with it.

But there are equally women like Victoria Coren and I who might like sex and might like it to be a little kinky.

“What I think I want is to do filthy and disrespectful things with someone I love and trust. That's not a moral code; I just think it's sexier, to unlock the hidden and forbidden with someone you also talk to politely at breakfast and watch being a civilised grown-up on social occasions. Conveniently, love also gets stronger if you share every dark secret. That's real intimacy.

But I'm wrong, because some people define intimacy differently. I'm wrong because some of you now think I'm a slut. I'm wrong because I'll never know how much more filthy, or how much less, I'd be without the billions of influences on our suggestible little brains, including those from centuries before we were born, that built the culture in which we live."

Aahh Victoria, Victoria, Victoria – I love you!

No Victoria, you are not wrong. You are absolutely right.

We have an abundance of influences on our sexuality, and some of us have to remove some insipid ones that have been instilled over years and possibly generations. I suspect, for instance, that those Victorian women who were treated for their hysteria were not my foremothers. I suspect this treatment was for those who could afford the astronomical prices for such indulgences.

I do not know what my grandparents and great-grand-parents sex lives were like but I further suspect that there certainly wasn’t much concern as to whether the woman was sexually liberated and enjoying it all.

But of course she is also wrong!

Victoria concludes with this lovely paragraph.

“But for anyone to say that Fry is "right" or "wrong" in any general sense is madness. As his clarification spelt out, he was just throwing around ideas about the incomprehensible. There's no point trying to find the truth of desire with anyone but your partner. There is no "women" or "men" or "sex". Sentences beginning with any of those words are usually meaningless. There is nothing but an infinite number of vibrating particles, and love.

And in saying that, of course, I'm probably wrong.”

“There is no “women” or “men” or “sex””. That is correct. One cannot make sweeping generalisations about sexuality. However, we have to have a starting point and therefore there has to be statements such as “women can ejaculate” or “women can have vaginal orgasms”.

Once we have got passed those little hurdles, then we can start considering the type of individual sexuality that Coren describes so perfectly.