19th century sexology invented the notion of exclusive sexualities as a certain Para-Christian derivative from the Christian religious notion of monogamous marital fidelity. But can interpersonal desire be exclusive and is there even such a thing as exclusive desire?
The peculiar notion of “exclusive sexualities” is premised on notions of physionomistic categories which were given formal discursive justification by the phallocentric pseudo-science of “sexology” as invented in the 19th century by discursively separating phallic pleasure from other forms of pleasure/desire.
The notion of exclusive desire is thus premised on the social construction of physionomistic categories as ostensibly exclusive entities. How then specifically are physionomistic categories invented and socially constructed? Unscientific physiognomy was the main method whereby it was believed that ostensibly innate purported “categorical membership” could be determined from morphology by mere patriarchal gaze. Since there are are vast numbers of bodies which contradict these pretentious notions of Para-Christian metaphysics of Para-Christian bodies was it deemed necessary to pathologize those bodies as ostensibly pathological deviations from the phantasmatic Para-Christian norm of ethnocratic patriarchy. When even this did not prove sufficient were further discursive devices invented to justify the unscientific enterprise of “taxonomic” physionomism.
The 19th century invention of an ostensibly exclusive desire known as so called “homosexuality” was thus a reverse discourse of the phantasmatic notion of a Para-Christian, ostensibly exclusive desire of “heterosexuality”. Considering the existence of passable transgender persons and intersexed persons is exclusively gendered desire not only impossible to prove but furthermore a logical impossibility indeed. Being regarded by oneself or by others as what is known as gay or lesbian is a double semiotic marker in denoting not only orientation in desire for specific gender expression in others but also most peculiarly gender expression in the desiring subject herself. The notion of so called “homosexuality” is thus a double semiotic marker as denoting both gender in subject of desire and gender in object of desire and thus most peculiarly discursively connecting the two.
All these were derivations of Para-Christian efforts to justify the ostensible “existence” of so called “heterosexuality” beyond being a phantasmatic discursive derivation of Catholic anti-desire church doctrine according to which only reproductive intimacy within monogamous hypothetically reproductive marriage was legitimate. The founders of the phallocentric pseudo-science of sexology thus sought to create pseudo-scientific justification for justifying Catholic doctrine on the subject of interpersonal intimacy.
The notion of so called “bisexuality” was invented on the basis of the notion of there being such a thing as ostensibly exclusive “homosexuality” as a reverse discourse of ostensibly exclusive “heterosexuality”. While there are no doubt socially constructed general orientations in direction of interpersonal desire are there no such things as exclusive “heterosexuality” and exclusive “homosexuality” in the sense that these are simply phantasmatic inventions by phallocentric pseudo-science. How is this so? This is because humans cannot be neatly separated into two exclusive physionomistic categories, neither so in terms of highly individual gender expression nor in terms of highly individual morphologies of anatomy and especially so considering the highly diverse existence of transgender people and intersexed people respectively. Due to the fact that this exclusive bisection of culturally and socially highly diverse gender expression and highly diverse morphologies of human anatomies is precisely phantasmatic and entirely without basis are notions of exclusively bisected gendered desire no less phantasmatic indeed.
So called “homosexuality” and so called “bisexuality” were branded as so called “paraphilia” of “deviating” from patriarchal religious constructions of interpersonal intimacy. Yet many other so called paraphilia were invented as well and perhaps the most well-known is that of so called “pedophilia” which is on the a spectrum of age desire with the other end of the psychometric spectrum being known as so called “gerontophilia”.
Sexologists do not claim that so called “pedophilia” is usually exclusive as so called “pedophilia” is rather defined as a being a main orientation/preference. The popular conception of so called pedophiles (one in ten adult males meet diagnostic criteria for pedophila) is that they are intimately uninterested in adults. Conversely is it popularly assumed that such intergenerational desire somehow does not exist in the general human population as such emotions are thus discursively projected onto so called “pedophiles” in hence producing pedophobia as a certain collective discursive sublimation of intergenerational pedoeroticism.
Homophobia is typically individually psychologically motivated by fear of being “homosexual” due to also individually experiencing so called “same-sex” desire. Pedophobia is no different in that a person experiencing pedophobia may be fearful due to also experiencing instances of intergenerational intimate interpersonal desire. This of course contradicts the mythic notion of exclusively categorical desire as the fact is that interpersonal desire is simply irreducible to socially invented ideological “taxonomies” of physionomistic categories of ethnocratic patriarchy.
Homoeroticism is typically sublimated as homosociality (gender bonding as e.g. expressed in patriarchy and feminism) and pedoeroticism is typically sublimated as “desire for family”, practices of “childraising”, “working with children” and of course by projective perpetuation of the invented physionomistic category of ostensible “pedophilia”. Most adults were indeed same-generational pedophiles as children. While in no way justifying child sexual abuse do quantitative scientific studies in no way support the hegemonic hypothesis of non-violent intergenerational sexual interaction causing traumatization.
Pedoeroticism in adult females is virtually never subject to pathologization due to this falling within the confines of normative patriarchal maternal female gender roles. So called “pedophilia” is thus a heavily gender-biased diagnostic construct as based on outdated stereotypical notions of parental genders that were publicly discredited already half a century ago. The problem is rather patriarchy; namely the ethnocratic intersection of age, gender and sexuality and structural male misbehavior generally in patriarchy, including male sexual exploitation of persons of all ages, genders and sexualities.
Homophobia and pedophobia are collectively discursively driven by the very non-taxonomic nature of gendered desire and aged desire respectively in being uncontained by and intrinsically irreducible to historically invented and socially constructed notions of ostensibly exclusively “categorical” interpersonal desire.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project
The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.