Annajcook of Future Feminist Librarian-Activist re-reads Freud’s Five Lectures and asks a great question:

While none of his basic views were startlingly new to me, I was struck as I read this chapter by two things: 1) how closely Freud’s description of childhood sexuality corresponds with current, twenty-first century progressive, feminist views of human sexuality, and 2) how strongly Freud seems to feel the need to contain, organize, and channel that sexuality within the circumscribed space of heterosexual intercourse for the purposes of reproduction.

Of childhood sexuality he writes:

A child’s sexual instinct turns out to be put together of a number of factors; it is capable of being divided into numerous components . . . independent of the reproductive function . . . it serves for the acquisition of pleasurable feeling, which, basing ourselves on analogies and connections, we bring together under the idea of sexual pleasure.

He describes masturbation, dominance/submission activities, the “desire for looking,” fantasy, sexual play and emotional bonds all under this broad umbrella. He also points out that “at this early period of childhood difference in sex plays no decisive part.” In sum, “widespread and copious” is the sexual life of children, loosely organized around the principle of pleasure (p. 46-48).

It is only after this rich description of sexuality, replete with possibility for variation, fluidity, and individuality which (crucially, in my opinion) places the recognition of pleasure at the heart of sexual feeling, that Freud retrenches. In the paragraph immediately following the descriptions above, he suggests that all of this abundant energy must, in order for “mature” adult sexuality to emerge, be “brought together and organized” into genitally-centered, reproductive activity (p. 48).

. . . Why? What is so terrifying to Freud (and any others who resist it) the first, “childhood,” model of sexual-sensual experience? This week in class, I’m looking forward to sitting down with this fear and trying to understand what, exactly, is so freaky about “widespread and copious” pleasure.

Read the quote in context here.

It’s a great, great question. Especially considering that the life of adults as described by Freud (especially the perpetually angry, violent, alienated, weak outside the home but tyrannical at home men of Victorian-era Germany and elsewhere in Europe and the U.K.) makes one wonder what the benefit was supposed to be.

This doesn’t mean, by the way, that I think we should all remain as sexually unfocused or even unconcerned as small children can be. Grown ups really are better at, better equipped for, and more broadly prepared for, well, a lot of things than are children. It’s just that since people who are more sexually expressive really do seem to be better adjusted adults than are people who are more sexually repressed it’s probably a good idea to nurture healthy, adult expression instead of trying to channel (pervert?) it to the single, and singularly rare function of intentional reproduction.

I think (obviously for someone with my blog title) it’s more appropriate to encourage sexual expression in adults after we’ve gone through a lot of healthy identity formation. (One of the problems with children, ironically, is that because they’re polymorphous they’re more easily manipulated down convenient-for-adult narrow pathways (gee, sound familiar?)... as opposed to organically developing their own.

Oh, also note: there I go trying to be all purposeful about it instead of acknowledging that there’s nothing wrong with adults enjoying “widespread and copious pleasure.” As long as (as Freud said elsewhere… or maybe it’s just the DSM-IV) it doesn’t impair everyday function.