|
Effeminacy
Turkey, Male Group Scene, 19th century, (miniature painting from the
Khamsa of Nevi Zade Atai, Khamsa (Book of Mesnivis).
Anal
rape is fundamental to relations between men. From antiquity to the
present, adolescent gangs have used the threat and fact of anal rape
to construct and maintain male hierarchies. In Crete c. 400 BC,
young men abducted and raped younger boys who then served them as
“wives” until they reached the appropriate age for marriage to
women. Historian Richard Trexler writes, “It has long been a
truism that the family is the foundation of the state, but . . . .
those relations between males that begin in gangs and continue in
these first homosexual marriages already provide a foundation for
the state – that is, that set of relations between males that
peaks in the power of the male sovereign.”[i] Proving the power of one man while subordinating
and shaming another, anal rape can be seen as more fundamental to
patriarchal social organization than any different-sex interaction.
Anal rape is an effective expression of power and weapon of
terror in part because of prohibitions on anal eroticism. These
prohibitions have deep historical roots in western culture. Same-sex
passions were an expected part of life for men and boys in Ancient
Greece, but intercrucal (between the thighs) intercourse was the
proscribed practice. Anal sex, and in particular anyone who took the
receptive role in anal intercourse, was viewed with deep suspicion.
During the Roman Empire, anal sex was viewed as permissible within
strict limits. Roman men could anally penetrate lower class men and
boys, but citizens (upper class, adult men) could not themselves be
penetrated. Penetration effeminates. Being a man means always being
on top.
Leo Bersani notes that the prohibitions on anal intercourse
reveal sex outside its mystifications. Getting fucked means being
effeminated, and that means being wounded, shamed, and powerless.
Men cannot be fucked, unless they are (made into) women.[ii]
The threat of being effeminated – so fundamental to relations between men –
is subverted by men who embrace effeminacy. The affectations and
vulnerabilities of effeminate men pose the possible pleasures, for
men, of powerlessness. Effeminacy evokes the recuperation of anal
eroticism, and the corresponding penetration and violation of
phallic masculinity.
Of course there is no necessary association of same-sex
passion with either effeminacy or anal eroticism. Other cultures may
eschew the anus as a site of pleasure and prohibition. And men who
love men, far from being considered effeminate, are in some cultures
held to be more manly than anyone else.[iii]
But in Western culture from the 19th century the homosexual is
characterized, in Foucault’s well-known formulation, by “a kind
of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul,” and “a way
of inverting the masculine and feminine in oneself.”[iv]
No matter how macho his personal style or how tight his sphincter,
every gay man, just by being gay, bears some relationship with
effeminacy.
A gay man, or some part of his soul, is soft, weak and
womanish –
though he is not merely debased and contemptible as a woman is
inside a patriarchal culture. He has a penis, but it is a means of
pleasure among men, instead of a weapon of power. He has a hole; he
is penetrable; but this penetration, powerlessness, and wounding is
desired and desirable. Luce Irigaray writes, “when the penis
itself becomes a means of pleasure among men, the phallus loses its
power.”[v]
When the anus becomes a means and a site of pleasure, the power of
intercourse to effeminate becomes moot. If softness, weakness and
vulnerability can be embraced by men, if men do not always have to
be on top, then phallic masculinity becomes a joy and a toy.
Relationships between men are re-envisioned as potentially playful,
erotic and free.
Fortified, tough, hard, phallic masculinity is opposite to
the receptivity, flexibility, softness and inwardness indicated by
anal eroticism. Will Roscoe writes, “From the patriarchal point of
view, we gay men castrate ourselves every time we give up male
privilege, every time, especially, that we allow our bodies to be
penetrated by other men. For us, penetration is the key to ecstasy
because it erases the distinction between inside and outside. Most
heterosexual men find this distinction indispensable to their sense
of ego, which they tend to think of in terms of metaphors of
fortification.”[vi]
Freud comments on the anal eroticism of all young human
beings, noting children’s interest in excretory products and
functions.[vii] Property too has a primary anal form. As a
little boy is instructed in the significance of his genital
superiority, he learns to organize his desires and explorations
under the aegis of the phallus. Anality is repudiated; the anus is a
hole too much like the mother’s. Just so, the boy’s real prick –
the feeling, trembling penis –
is something he is no longer allowed to play with. The Oedipal
interdict prohibits his desire, and offers instead an insentient,
indifferent identity with the Big-Prick-In-The-Sky. The little
boy’s struggles against the prohibitions on his sentient body have
been described by psychoanalysis. The intended resolution of this
“complex” is that the little boy accepts these prohibitions by
acknowledging the threat of castration (acknowledging sexual
difference), but assuming that he will one day possess the Big Prick
of his (dead) father. This resolution is only the “ideal
fiction” of mental health. More often, “success is achieved at
the price of a rift in the ego which never heals but increases as
time goes on” (Freud).[viii]
There is a licit identity-with-the-phallus, where he speaks with all
the authority of phallic masculinity: insentient, closed, fortified,
indifferent. And there is an illicit identity-with-castration, that
cannot ever be spoken, where he still feels, trembles, wants.
Anal eroticism harkens back to the pre-Oedipal perversity of
childhood. It calls to the trembling identity-with-castration: the
incoherent, forbidden, yearning and wounded self that dwells inside
the guts and just under the skin. For men pinned down and pumped up
by phallic masculinity, anal penetration is a radical, transforming
desire. Frank Browning describes anal penetration as “an entry
into the most private and sacred zones of individual identity,”
and “an act which shatters the authority and integrity of the male
self.”[ix]
Klaus Theweleit, writing of male fantasies, comments “Anal
penetration comes to represent the opening of social prisons,
admission into a hidden dungeon that guards the keys to the
recuperation of the revolutionary dimension of desire. . . .”[x]
Men forgo so much when they identify with phallic
masculinity. In every area of life and relationship, they are to
keep things tough and dry. The Oedipal interdict would keep men
devoid of care, passion and playfulness. Feeling is what
characterizes the pre-Oedipal child, or the wounded body of a woman.
With effeminacy, men claim a capacity for emotion, beauty and
connectedness, love of home, personal sharing and adornment, an
ecological concern for the web of life.[xi]
Instead of the indifferent, transcendent identity with the phallus,
they open up to gaiety, grief and awful need.
Many lesbians reject femininity. We see that femininity is
wrecked, historically, by the centuries it has functioned as a
signifier of genital inferiority and of silence, submission and
passivity. We leave it to effeminate men to bring alive the values
that inhere in elaborate decoration, attention to surfaces,
sensitivity, vulnerability and silliness. If effeminate men can hold
and protect the rejected feminine, even as it endangers them to do
so, they may teach us to open our own post-Oedipal bodies to risk,
complication, and joy.
Greek
drinking plate, showing either a woman dressed as a man or a man
dressed as a woman, flirting with another man.
In the context of a prohibition on effeminacy, homoeroticism
and homosexuality can coexist quite comfortably with homophobia – even, as with the Nazis, with the mass murder of gay
people. It is commonplace for homosexually-active men to disavow
homosexual identity, so long as they never take the receptive role
in anal intercourse.[xii]
Anal penetration effeminates, violates, wounds and creates the
effeminate soul of the homosexual. Without gay identity, when the
actors do not affirm that they are
homosexual, homosexuality takes place within limits that affirm and
enforce power relations between men and contempt for women.
Accepting or embracing queer identity and becoming gay means being
called outside these limits. Claiming a capacity for effeminacy, for
anal eroticism and the pleasures of penetration, effeminacy
re-appropriates the meaning and magic of same-sex desire to its
revolutionary potential.
It is a truism that avoiding anality leads to disenchantment,
parsimony, and an obsessive concern with order and boundaries. Anal
eroticism is a doorway to enchantment, excess and transgression.
Effeminacy affirms the existence of penetrable men who forego
phallic authority, and instead choose radical openness. It allows us
to envision the phallus as a toy, the penis as blood and skin, and
the designation of sexual difference as an ongoing alchemy that
could someday become playful, poetic, and free. ▼
[i]
Richard Trexler, 1995, (30); see also (23-31).
[ii]
Leo Bersani, “Is the Rectum a Grave?” in Douglas Crimp, ed.,
1988, (197-222).
[iii] As,
for example, in ancient Sparta or Japanese samurai traditions.
[iv]
Michel Foucault, 1978, (43).
[v]
Luce Irigaray, “When the Goods Get Together,” in Elaine
Marks and Isabella de Courtivron, eds., (107), emphasis
original.
[vi]
Will Roscoe, 1995, (261).
[vii]
Sigmund Freud, “Civilization and its Discontents,” 1930, in
James Strachey, ed., 1985, Vol. 12, (289n); (304).
[viii]
Sigmund Freud, “Splitting of the
Ego in the Process of defense,” 1940, in James Strachey, ed.,
Vol. 11., (462).
[ix]
Frank Browning, 1994, (87, 89).
[x]
Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies, trans Chris Turner and
Erica Carter, Cambridge: polity Press, 1989, Volume 2 p 138,
quoted by Murray Healy, 1996.
[xi]
see Scott Wirth, in Hopke et. al.
(eds.), 1993 (201) for a telling list of the effeminacies by
which gay men come to “give themselves away,” even while
they try not to acknowledge their homosexuality.
[xii]
Wayne Wooden and Jay Parker, 1982.
|