HEALTHY AND NEUROTIC SELF-CONFIDENCE

For the sexually mature young man who has a sex-economic structure, the orgastic experience with a woman constitutes a gratifying bond; it elevates the partner and effaces any tendency to degrade the woman who has shared the experience. In the case of orgastic impotence, only the psychic forces of defence can come into play, nausea and disgust at genital sensuality. These defence forces draw their energy from several sources. To begin with, the defensive force is at least as strong as the genital yearning that is being resisted. And the fact that it has not been satisfied has only intensified it, nor does it make the least difference that it is unconscious. In addition, the actual brutalization of sexuality in modern man offers some justification for the disgust at sexual intercourse. This brutalized sexuality becomes the prototype of sexuality in general. Thus, compulsive morality produces precisely that to which it later appeals to justify its existence (‘sexuality is asocial’). A third emotional source of the defence forces is the sadistic conception of sexuality that the children of all patriarchal cultural circles acquire in early childhood. Since every inhibition of genital gratification intensifies the sadistic impulse, the entire sexual structure becomes sadistic. Since, moreover, genital claims are replaced by anal claims, the reactionary sexual slogan that a woman is degraded by sexual intercourse strikes a chord in the adolescent structure. In short, it is owing to the already existing perversity in the adolescent structure that the slogan can be

effective. It is from his own personal experience that the adolescent has developed a sadistic conception of sexual intercourse. Thus, here too we find a confirmation of the fact that man’s compulsive moralistic defence forces constitute the basis of political reaction’s power. Ever more sharply, the relation between mystical sentiments and sexual ‘morality’ is brought into focus. Regardless of the content of the mystical experience, it is essentially the negation of genital strivings. It is essentially sexual defence, and it takes place with the help of nongenital sexual excitations. The difference between the sexual response and the mystical response is that the latter does not allow the perception of sexual excitation and precludes orgastic release, even in cases of so-called religious ecstasy.

Perception of sexual desire excluded and orgasm precluded, mystical excitation is forced to effect a permanent change in the biopsychic apparatus. The sexual act itself is experienced as something degrading. There is never a complete natural experience. The warding off of orgastic desire forces the ego to form compulsive conceptions of ‘purity’ and ‘perfection’. Healthy sensuousness and the ability to gratify one’s desires produces natural self-confidence. The defensive formations in the mystical man result in a pathological self-confidence that is rotten at the core. Just as the self-confidence of the nationalist, the self-confidence of the mystical man is drawn from the defensive attitudes. Even on the surface, however, the self-confidence of the mystical man differs from the self-confidence that derives from natural genital gratification. The former is exaggerated, lacks naturalness in behaviour, and is characterized by feelings of sexual inferiority. This explains why the man who has been inculcated with mystical or nationalistic ‘ethics’ is so accessible to political reactionary catchwords, such as honour, purity, etc. He is continually forced to remind himself to be honourable and pure. The genital character is spontaneously pure and honourable - he does not have to be constantly reminded.

Some Questions of Sex-Political Practice

THEORY AND PRACTICE

Reactionary academic research postulates a ‘separation between that which is and that which should be’, between ‘cognition and execution’. Therefore, it imagines itself to be ‘nonpolitical’, to be divorced from politics. Logic, indeed, contends that what should be, can never be deduced from what is. We recognize a restriction here, the purpose of which is to enable the academician to devote himself to research, without obligating himself to draw the consequences that are inherent in every serious scientific insight. Such consequences are always progressive, very often revolutionary. For us, the development of theoretical views is dictated by the necessities of vital life, by the need to solve practical problems. Our theoretical views must lead to new, better, more suitable action and the mastering of practical tasks. Our theory is of value only insofar as it is confirmed in and by practice. Everything else, we leave to the intellectual jugglers, to the guardians of the hierarchy of ‘values’. First of all, we have to correct the basic error of theology, which stagnates in academic expositions and therefore cannot show us a rational way out. We concur with the opinion of many researchers that all forms of religious mysticism mean mental darkness and narrow-mindedness. We know that over the centuries man’s religiousness has become an instrument of power. In this, too, we are in agreement with some academic researchers. We differ from them only in terms of our serious determination to combat mysticism and superstition successfully, and to convert our knowledge into hard practice. In the struggle between natural science and mysticism, we wonder whether natural science has exhausted all the possibilities at its disposal. We have to answer in the negative. Mysticism, on the other hand, keeps the masses of the people blindly imprisoned. Yet, before we continue, let us briefly summarize the history of this struggle.