Female sexuality, as defined by the Patriarchy.
By now, most of you have probably come across Freud’s theory of penis envy. In case you haven’t, Freud stresses the realization in female psychosexual development of a lack a penis.
For years, feminists worldwide have debated this so-called theory. Luce Irigaray is one of these feminists. In her incredibly explicit and moving article “The Sex Which Is Not One,” Irigaray states that this theory is one of many theories (and not just Freud’s) that defines female sexuality within masculine parameters. Think about it: do most of us not assume that women lack something that men have? Certainly Freud did. But do men not lack a vagina? Why is it that women are characterized as “lacking”?
Irigaray continues with the idea that since female sexuality is understood within a patriarchal ideology, it needs to be rearticulated using terms that are not recognized by the patriarchy. These terms can manifest in what she considers the prelinguistic (before language). In other words, the female body needs to be rewritten, understood and mapped out without using patriarchal language. Writings of the female body must express that female sexuality is not used only for the purpose of male desire, but rather, to experience “multiple” female pleasures. Think about it: how many movies are there today that encourage a sexuality where males dominate and females are submissive? Irigaray refers to these imposed female desires as a form of masochism. Last year, when I learned about this article, that word jumped out at me. Sure, I was slightly surprised, but I was more compelled; it’s true, isn’t it?
I was recently reminded of the 1999 movie Cruel Intentions. I remember when this movie came out; I was eleven and aroused with curiosity. A man scheming with a woman to steal another woman’s virginity? This realm of sexuality seemed to exist outside of my own realm of grade five portables and an annoying little brother. Little did I know that I, too, would learn sexuality in terms of male desire. In the opening scene of the Cruel Intentions trailer, Ryan Phillippe’s character Sebastian snaps photographs of Selma Blair’s naïve and dimwitted character Cecile while telling her to undress because it will make her “sexier.” Here we encounter the heart of Irigaray’s essay. Female sexuality is ignored and male sexuality is endorsed. Sebastian wants her clothes off because she is sexier to him in that state. In the next scene, before throwing Cecile violently off the bed that they have presumably just had sex together in, Sebastian says that he is sick of “insipid Manhattan debutants.” This scene presents the classic binary relationship between men and women as aggressive and passive respectively. I say classic because this relationship has existed in society for centuries. According to Naomi Wolf, it began in the fourteenth century. But the myth of the female heroine is still perpetuated today. However, this heroine, as Wolf states, is a contradiction because heroism is about individuality and the female heroine is characterized as “beauty-without-intelligence.”
This brings me to the plot of the movie. Sebastian has “had it” with all the women in New York City and is bored. In a bet with his step-sister, he plans to seduce the virgin Reese Witherspoon. Witherspoon’s character Annette partly embodies Wolf’s notion of the female heroine: although she is smart, she is beautiful because she is innocent. Cecile embodies the other part of the stereotype: she is portrayed as stupid, presumably because she is not “sexy” enough for Sebastian (but what is sexy is the innocent Annette). Today the stereotype of the female heroine seems to have changed slightly from Wolf’s notion, but the passive/aggressive binary still exists in this movie: male aggressor wants to seduce a passive female. Thus, as an eleven year old girl watching this movie, am I not understanding female sexuality only in terms of a patriarchal binary?
In her article, Irigaray takes an essentialist stance. Although essentialism is limited and is considered a Second Wave crime to many Third Wavers, I am still a believer. However, I am also aware that a woman’s “female essence” can vary from culture to culture. Female and male roles, too, can vary from culture to culture. But essentialism is crucial in identifying, specifically in Western society, the language of the patriarchy. After mentioning this theory, I also want to be conscious of my materialist point of view. Sexuality is not just an issue pertaining to the body, but it is also socially constructed, as my understanding of Cruel Intentions suggests.
