The Hite report on Love, Passion and Emotional Violence 0356201295

Citation preview

0 /> r / j/ j

MAttbvmJtUH

Shere Hite is an internationally recognized cultural historian and researcher. The Hite Report cm female sexuality and The Hite Report on Male Sexuality, the first two works of her monumental trilogy, have been translated into thirteen languages and are used in courses at universities around the world. Shere Hite holds two degrees in history and is an active member of various cultural and scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Historical Association, and the Society for Women in Philosophy.

An Optima Book

This edition published in 1991 by Macdonald Optima, a division of Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd London & Sydney

"s.

First published in Great Britain as The Hite Report on Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress by Viking, 1988 First published in the USA by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1987 Copyright © Shere Hite 1987 The Hite Report is a registered trademark of Hite Research This edition published by arrangement with Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Hite, Shere The Hite report on love, passion and emotional violence. I. Title 306.73 ISBN 0-356-20129-5 Printed and bound in Great Britain by BPCC Hazell Books Aylesbury, Bucks, England Member of BPCC Ltd.

Optima Books A Division of Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd 165 Great Dover Street London SE1 4YA A member of Maxwell Macmillan Publishing Corporation

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following for permission to reprint previously published material: Gloria Bowles: Excerpts from “The Uses of Mermeneutics for Feminist Scholarship,” by Gloria Bowles, originally published in Vol. VII, No. 3, December 1984 issue of Women's Studies International Forum. Copyright © 1984 by Gloria Bowles. Columbia Pictures Publications'. Excerpt from the song lyrics “My Man (Mon Homme),” lyrics by Channing Pollock, composed by Maurice Yvain, A. Willemetz, and J. Charles. Copyright 1920, 1921 by Francis Salabert, Paris, France. Renewed 1948, 1949. Rights for North America controlled by Leo Feist, Inc. All rights of Leo Feist, Inc., assigned to SBK Catalogue Partnership. All rights controlled and administered by SBK Catalogue. International copyright secured. Made in USA. All rights reserved. World English language rights excluding the United States administered by International Music Publications. Copyright 1921 by Editions Salabert Inc. Ascherberg Hopwood & Crew Ltd., London Wl. Reprinted by permission of Ascherberg Hopwood & Crew Ltd. and International Music Publications. Judy Grahn: Excerpt from the poem “A Funeral Plainsong,” from The Work of a Common Woman: Collected Poems, by Judy Grahn. Copyright © 1978 by Judy Grahn. New Directions Publishing Corporation: Excerpt from the poem “Pleasant Song,” section entitled “Conversations in Courtship,” from Love Poems of Ancient Egypt, by Ezra Pound. Copyright © 1960 by Ezra Pound. Reprinted by permission of New Directions Publishing Corporation. World English language rights excluding the United States and Canada administered by Faber and Faber Ltd. on behalf of the Ezra Pound Literary Property Trust. G. Schurmer, Inc., & Associated Music Publishers, Inc.: Excerpt from the song lyrics “Keep Your Hands on the Prize.” Copyright by Oak Publications, a Division of Music Sales Corp. International copyright secured. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Contents

Acknowledgments

xxv

Philosophical Reflections on the Hite Reports, by Joseph P. Fell

xxvii

Quantifying the Emotions: Methodological Observations on the Hite Report Trilogy, by Gladys Engel Lang

xxix

The Hite Reports: Charting an Ideological Revolution in Progress, by Naomi Weisstein

,

xxxiii

PART I The Emotional Contract: Emotional Life in Marriages and Love Relationships with Men What happens to love?

j

The Major Problems in Love Relationships

y

Men’s emotional withholding and distancing: reluctance to talk about personal thoughts and feelings

y

Lack of emotional support from men: not being listened to, heard or “seen”

//

viii

Contents

Listening with enthusiasm vs. listening “patiently”: Do men feel women have anything important to say?

14

Emotional indifference

17

Most men assume they have a right to emotional support from women, that women should be loving and caring How lonely can you be in a love relationship?

22

..

Men’s distancing: part of an ideology

25 24

Emotional withholding: power and control in relationships Emotional and psychological harassment of women

23 2 6

Gender insults, condescending and trivializing attitudes, slights, and put-downs

26

Hidden gender bias in language

32

Male nagging?

3

Emotional violence

3p

p

After twenty years of the women’s movement, do women feel they are seen as equals in their relationships?

4 0

Loving one who loves you, yet believes you are inferior (or “less rational,” more “intuitive”)

2

43

Fighting and Arguing in Relationships: What Do They Mean?

43

Typical fights

43

“If a woman doesn’t bring it up, nobody will”: the role society gives women in fights

47

The riddle of male passivity in fights with women

33

“I feel fine. Why are you complaining?”: men’s patterns during fights Unfair fighting

36

p

3

“Don’t make your bed a battleground”: But is having sex really making up? Can fighting help? Productive fighting: techniques for staying close The intimidation of women through physical violence

61 62 62 63

Much, perhaps most, fighting represents women standing up for their dignity, trying to make a relationship work

70

Contents

ix

The Ideology Behind the System—Women’s Giving, Men’s “Being” The emotional contract

75

What is emotional equality? Women: the ones who try to “make it work”

77

Men assume they will “star” in relationships

79

What does being loved feel like? Do men love women—or just need them?

83

Are men more emotionally dependent than women? Men’s value system makes love less important—although most men expect to receive love and nurturing from women

86

Men’s emotional demands on women

88

Women are questioning the emotional arrangements in their lives Women’s emotional “duty”

89 90

Can we continue to be nurturing, or should women become more “like men”? Loving men under the current system: What happens?

93

93

Struggling to maintain identity and dignity, while still loving

96

Disappearing slowly like the Cheshire cat: women’s identity

102

Women’s anger—but do women have a right to anger, since “good” women are loving?

109

Feeling insecure and depressed: Are we too “obsessed with love,” or are men often treating us outrageously?

///

Isn’t women’s anger logical? Women have a right to be angry

114

Men should not fear women’s anger; they should welcome it

117

Do women “love too much”? Or do men love too little?

117

Is it women’s values which should change—or men’s?

/1 8

A new view of “female psychology”: goodbye to Freud and assorted others Standard theories of women’s psychology are wrong

>18

121

Contents

X

Men’s double message to women, not women’s “lack of self-esteem,” makes women feel insecure

121

A note on the popular epithet, “Women lack self-esteem”

122

Wondering whether to leave: Is the love we want only a dream?

' 23

Giving up on love: leaving the system behind emotionally and intellectually

H

124

Relationships: Are they still the center of most women’s lives?

130

Women are changing the emotional structure of their lives from what it has been for generations

131

Conclusion to Part I: A Conflict of Two Cultures: Women’s

View of Love as Part of a Separate Culture and Value System

132

The “male” ideology and the slow erosion of love

133

The emotional contract: injustice built into the system

/34

“Women’s” culture and “men’s” culture: two worlds

136

The two cultures: a historical tradition or a biological given?

136

“Men are the reality, women are the role”

137

What is the “male” ideology and why does it make it so hard for men to love? Hierarchy: the essence of the “male” ideology

138 13 p

The psychology of being “male”: “someone has to be on top”

140

Why are most men confused when they fall in love?

141

What are the values of “women’s” culture?

142

Women’s thinking about relationships is leading women to ask deeper questions about the nature of society Women are faced with a historic choice

144 143

Could the “female” or “love” value system (the family value system) disappear?

146

Seeing the world through new eyes: the “Other” transformed

146

Contents

xi

PART II Being Single: Women and Autonomy Being single; feeling free—or emotional confusion and relationship burnout? To define one’s own life

131 131

4

Four Single Women Describe Their Lives

133

5

Dating Men: Fun or Russian Roulette?

ij 2

The agonizing moment of starting a new relationship: Should you have sex? Will he “trash” you later?

1/2

Was it a “one-night stand,” or did he change his mind?

1/4

“The happy story of one woman’s revenge . .

1/3

The latest in “lines” men love to use

r/y

“Nobody dates anymore, they just sleep together” (. . . still, since AIDS?)

180

“Birth control? condoms? He’s never even asked!”

181

The double standard lives

/ 83

Do men have a right to push for casual sex? What gives them this right?

184

When does date pressure become rape?

186

Does having intercourse with a man “mean” anything? If you do have “sex,” what can you “expect”?

188

“After the first time we made love, he said, ‘Let’s not get serious.’”

189

2,500 college men vote on whether to continue the double standard

/90

“Having sex shifts the power thing: When you meet the next night, you are no longer just two equals having dinner.” Using boys as “toys”: Do women like sex “for fun”? Women describe their sexual adventures

190 192 192

Most women want sex with feelings and love, most of the time

195

Flirting and using men: female “conquests”

198

A new virginity and celibacy What does “virginity” mean?

202 203

Contents

X 1 1

Did women have more “power” before the “sexual revolution” by remaining “virgins” while single, “withholding” sex?

20$

Is looking for lots of “sex” “natural”? Are women “brainwashed”—or are men “dehumanized”?

207

Was the “sexual revolution” wrong? or is it the “male” ideology and its double standard that make it wrong?

v

208

Where did the double standard come from? Adam and Eve as early propaganda

2 op

Does the new religious revival movement challenge the double standard? What is sexuality? Creating a new vision of sexuality

210 2 11

What was women’s sexuality originally like?

2 11

Can women, even now, define sex on their own terms?

217

Continuing controversies over the nature of female orgasm

213

But—do men really enjoy their definition of sexuality so fully?

2 17

Toward a new sexuality: reintegrating sexuality and spirituality

6

2ip

Inside Dating Relationships: How Are Women Feeling?

222

Emotional uncertainty in relationships

222

Is it “a relationship” or isn’t it?

22 6

Men’s fear of commitments

230

The “playboy generation” and the ideology of “freedom”: Why are so many men so ambivalent about love and commitments?

237

Pretending not to care: Should women be as “cool” as men?

238

Should a woman be monogamous if a man doesn’t make a commitment? Power and games of strategy

24.2 244

Edith Bunker and the Mme de Pompadour school of thought

244

Breaking the spell of the singles game

24 6

Do most single women want monogamous relationships?

230

To believe in love, no matter what the cost: Does love have to be so difficult?

238

Contents

xiii

“Love is a battlefield”

238

How many compromises should a woman make?

23 p

Men’s patterns in single relationships

260

Women’s growing disrespect for men with

7

these behaviors

263

A new analysis of “male” psychology

266

Loving Men Who Are “Bad for You”: The Myth of Female Masochism

267

“Do you sometimes think you pick the wrong men?”

267

What does “wrong” mean?

270

Great loves, painful love affairs

274.

How much unhappiness do women put up with, and why? Why do women stay in difficult relationships?

280

Most women do leave unhappy and exploitative relationships

281

Is it worth having a less intense relationship, just to avoid the pain of volatile ups and downs?

285

Practicality versus the soul: Must every relationship end with the “perfectly adjusted heterosexual couple”?

286

Instead of being called “masochists,” why aren’t women admired for their loyalty?

287

Is following an impractical “great love” a mistake?

288

Is there a “true masochism”? Unanswered questions about passion Sexual passion: a desire for “submission”?

8

287 2pi

Single Women Debate Whether to Marry

2pj

Pressures on women to marry—still

293

Do women have the freedom not to marry?

2pj

Most women are not married for large parts of their lives: being single is “normal”

2pp

Mixed feelings about marriage

2P7

Women who don’t want to marry

2pp

Women who do want to marry: What are their reasons?

302

Loving one person: emotional security

302

Wanting children

302

Contents

X 1 V

Social pressure: “Why aren’t you married yet?”

304

Thirty and not married: the terror ...

306

Family pressures

310

Reproductive time pressures

310

Struggling against the stereotypes Is it better to marry the “wrong” man or to stay “single forever”?

312

V 314

Feeling embarrassed to admit you want marriage: the new pressure to be “independent” Being ideologically “correct”

313 316

Do women still have the “right” to be financially “dependent”?

317

“Women are fed up with having ‘equal rights’—it means you have to do everything!”

318

What does it mean to be “independent”?

322

Conclusion to Part II: Being unattached and independent:

calling your life your own

323

In celebration of life on our own

323

Why women like being single

323

Flaving children on your own: woman/child as a family unit

j26

“Older” single women: happy or alone?

$28

Our right to ourselves

?36

Most women love to spend time alone

336

PART III Marriage and the Nature of Love The beauty of marriage

343

The feminist critique of marriage

344

9

Ten Women Describe Their Marriages

J46

10

Extramarital Sex and Affairs

jpp

Are most women monogamous?

jp4

Why do women have affairs?

jp6

Contents

Double lives: What do they mean?

4 op

The chronology of alienation

4 op

How do women feel about their husbands’ affairs?

412

Men’s reactions to their wives’ affairs

4 17

Being “the other woman”

427

Whatever happened to “the other man”?

11

xv

4J0

Finances and Housework

4j 1

Finances: Who earns the money and how is it split?

441

70 percent of women now earn money: What is the effect on marriage?

4j 1

How do women feel about being financially dependent on their husbands?

472

Money-sharing arrangements of those with double incomes

447

Housework: Are women still doing the housework? even

12

though most women work outside the home?

449

Are changing finances changing the shape of marriage?

457

Women’s Feelings About Divorce

459

Women initiate most divorces

457

What are divorces like for women?

460

The process of divorce and the courts

46s

The economics of divorce and the “feminization of poverty”: facing poverty but leaving anyway

13

467

What Is the Purpose of Being Married, According to Married Women

467

The basic pleasures and benefits women find in marriage

469

Companionship, “belonging somewhere,” and security

467

Economic cooperation

473

The physical warmth of marriage—for some

4 75

Having children

478

Social acceptability/social approval

484

Love: What kind of love do most women want in their marriages?

485

Contents

X V 1

14

What Is Love—Passion or Caring?

488

Women, both single and married, debate the nature of love

488

How does it feel to be passionately “in love”?

4 8p

Many women don’t like—or no longer trust—their passionate feelings Being “in love” is impractical and painful

4pi

"v,

4pi

Is being “in love” a delusion, a psychological problem? just lust? What is passionate love? How does it fit into life?

4P 6 4pp

“If I can’t have passion, I’d rather not bother.” Are single women more likely to prefer being “in love”? Women who believe in love as caring

500 50/

Does the emotional contract make it necessary for women to “play it safe” in relationships?

po6

Is caring always “love” or is it sometimes just “liking”? Is there anything wrong with this?

506

When is “caring” just following social pressures to “take care of others”?

5/0

“Is the normal course of relationships that passion just dies after a while?”

51 0

The checkmate pattern: male emotional distance/harassment, followed by female sexual lack of interest

pii

Married women who are in love with their husbands

pip

Which kinds of love work best in marriage?

pip

New emotional arrangements within marriage

p2i

Is it possible to love and not love totally?

p23

Conclusion to Part III: Marriage—A Promise of Home

P24

Are married women happy, or not going after their dreams?

524

“I’m not really happy but I’m not unhappy either.”

524

Double lives: leaving a marriage emotionally

p26

Are “home-base” marriages the answer?

pj 0

Redefining marriage: progress or cop-out? Does “liberation” mean rejecting marriage? Was there marriage before patriarchy? Marriage as longing for home

pjo ppi pj2

Contents Is the “age of the family” over?

xvii yjj

“1 he family is the basis of our society; without it, the society will crumble.”

yyy

“The family would lose its central personality— the mother . . .”

yyy

Longing for love

^ (,

PART IV Women Loving Women Listening on another frequency

y^ /

15

Seven Women Describe Loving Women

y^y

16

Are Love Relationships Between Women Different?

j/j

Another way of life

yyy

What is love?

yy^

Pleasures of relationships: What are the parts of love relationships between women that women most enjoy?

579

Problems between women in love relationships

5S5

Is love between women more equal? Do women treat each other with more respect? Is emotional giving and sharing more reciprocal?

y 88

Fighting

spi

Are women in gay relationships monogamous? “We’re wife and wife” Fear of non-lasting relationships

yPy 604 604

Do gay relationships last? Does gay marriage work?

604

Breaking up: Is it harder for gay women?

605

Gay women and money

611

How do most gay women handle finances in their relationships? share money and expenses?

611

Do gay women have money—or are most poor?

61 j

Being single and gay Do gay women like being single?

614 614

Coming out is hard to do—but most women sound very happy about it

617

Women over forty: becoming gay for the first time

621

Contents

xviii

Once gay, always gay? Once straight, always straight? Being gay: a political choice, or a biological given?

628

635

Is gay love more “politically correct” love? more chic? (Is there such a thing as “heterosexual oppression”?) Loving women: Does this “make” you gay?

639 638

Where is the dividing line between gay and straight affection for a friend?

638

Gay women describe their love for their best friends

639

When is love for another woman “gay,” and when is it friendship?

631

Fear of loving and desiring another woman: Do some heterosexual women love their women friends more than they love men?

643

Being woman-identified: a valid alternative

643

Another world, another culture

644

PART V To Transform the Culture with Our Values The Other transformed

649

Women’s thinking about relationships is causing them to

17

question the whole system

649

Women’s dissatisfaction: driving social change

630

“I don’t just want equality—I want something better’

651

Women as a force in history

632

Loving Men at This Time in History

634

Where is love?

634

Can women change relationships?

639

Old-style relationships

660

“New model” relationships: changing the emotional contract

664

Couples involved in change (20 percent succeed)

663

Marriage and living with “younger men”

6y7

Men’s resistance to change

681

Why is it so hard for men to change?

686

What should a woman do if a man won’t change the relationship?

686

Contents

To appease men or confront them: a political question

xjx 68y

How many women find it necessary to leave, or be prepared to leave, to make their demands for change heard?

figy

Risking losing all love by insisting on real love

688

Is it women's responsibility to help men change?

689

Should women take a mass vacation from trying to understand men?

6a ,

The gradual wearing down of an identity: a betrayal of yourself?

692

“Women haven’t yet begun to fight for their rights in personal relationships”

.

692

A long goodbye to the “male” ideology

6pj

The “male” ideology and the psychology of a culture

696

Hierarchy: “human nature” or an ideological construction?

699

How big a part of the “male” ideology is seeing women as second-class?

699

Men’s fear of being “in love”

yoi

Change is a Catch-22 for men

yo2

The current state of world affairs: the connection between “male pride,” hierarchical social structure, and international terrorism

yoz

Origins of “male” domination

704

How angry could women get?

yo6

Do almost all women feel generalized repressed anger at

18

men and “male” society for dominating them?

yo 6

“Kept waiting for too long?”

yoy

Friendships Between Women: Another Culture, Another Way of Life

yop

Women love their friendships with other women

yo9

Why are women so happy with their women friends?

yij

Emotional empathy and subtle communication between women The importance of women’s friendships Women speak more freely with each other

7/5 919

7/y

Contents

xx

Women’s friendships: often emotionally closer than love relationships with men

720

Talking about men: are women “using” their friends, or trying to understand another culture?

72 i

Breaking up with a friend

727

Women and power

..

72 6

We may love our women friends, but do we take them seriously?

72 6

Fear of the power of the “male” system

728

Noble thoughts and extreme transcendence—men only?

770

Solidarity among women

771

Can women be power centers in society now? Can we trust each other enough? Will we stand up for each other?

771

Being proud of each other and supporting each other: the

19

key to changing our status

777

To Make a World in Which More Love Can Flourish

776

A renaissance of human nature and the spirit

77 6

The twenty-first century—now?

777

Could the values of “female” culture serve as a framework for a revolutionary philosophical transformation?

741

“Women’s” culture: a different tradition

742

Theoretical debates over “women’s” culture

748

How would this transformation in culture occur? How does change happen?

774

Are revolutions about changing thinking, or taking power?

774

Will non-violent resistance work?

777

Are we pacifists by choice—or are we

afraid

to fight?

77 8

A militaristic strategy?

77p

Women’s honor—our own code

760

Ideological revolution

761

A new philosophy

767

Not “the human condition”—not forever . . .

764

A new spirit: the “other” now as seer

767

Contents Appendixes

xxi ?^

Essay on the Methodology of the Hite Reports

769

Questionnaire

yg?

Statistical Data

g0l

Bibliography and Additional Reading

p0r

'

The Hite Report on Love, Passion and Emotional Violence

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the many people who have been of help over the years of research involved in this project. Those who were kind enough to read this manuscript and offer helpful criticism include Frank Sommers, Barbara Ehrenreich, Peter Gay, Eric Foner, Jessie Bernard, and Albert Ellis. Their insights were invaluable and undoubtedly saved me from many pitfalls. Not only for this, the last volume of the Hite Reports, but during all three reports, there have been those who have been intellectually supportive. They include Barbara Seaman, Leah Schaefer, Shirley Zussman, William Granzig, Mary Calderone, John Money, Bob Gottlieb, Janet Wolfe, Naomi Weisstein, Jesse Lemisch, Martha Kaplan, and Howard Wilson. Regina Ryan was the principal editor of the first volume, and has also worked importantly on the later two volumes. Lindy Hess worked with great skill on the first Hite Report, and also added her considerable talents to part of the editing of this volume. Anya Schiffren was also extensively involved in editing of this volume. Particular credit should be given to those who, with great patience and intelligence, spent long hours working with me making the data manageable. They include Susan Rolnick, Rose Sabunjian, Barrie Sternberg, Audrey Fishburn, Annick Delorme, David Jones, Lin Crouch, Kate Colleran, and Micka Menos. Two of my friends who were very close to me and involved in the manu¬ script have died during the course of this work, and I would like to commemo¬ rate them here: Gudula Lorez, the feminist publisher and translator of my works into German; and my oldest and deepest friend, Julian Prose, born Eros Gyulya, earlier in his life a member of the Hungarian Parliament.

XXV

Acknowledgments

Also, without the support of my remarkable women friends, most of whom I first met during the early days of the women’s movement, this work would not have remained the great pleasure and excitement that it continues to be and always was. For being there, I would like to thank Joyce Gold, Syd Beiner, Catharine di Maria, Rikke Andersen, Calla Fricke, Margaret Civan, Tere Tereba, and Sarosh Roshan. My editor, Bob Gottlieb, was an important force in the creation of this trilogy. His faith and commitment from the very beginning, through all three books, and in the case of this volume, when the work was barely conceptual¬ ized, meant more to me than I can ever say. Through the early and middle stages of this manuscript, when the argument was not as yet totally crystalized, he continued to believe in the importance of what was being documented, and provided brilliant editorial and conceptual clarity at many crucial points along the way. Corona Machemer is the editor responsible for much of whatever elegance of style and presentation can be found in these pages, and for many profound and subtle touches throughout. My brilliant and inspiring husband, Friedrich Horicke, has been so under¬ standing and supportive during the final stages of this work that I have grown to admire him even more than I already did. He fills my life with music and poetry, more every day—so many kinds of beauty. To all these, and to my darling Rusty, my winged deer, I send my thanks— which is hardly an adequate word for how deeply I feel a closeness to all of them.

Philosophical Reflections on the Hite Reports

As a philosopher I believe that the task of ethics or moral philosophy is to determine what the real and pressing needs of human beings are and then to determine how these needs can be fairly and justly met. The first requirement for moral philosophy is thus actual knowledge of human needs, knowledge which, historically, has not been easy to obtain. The Hite Reports are concrete empirical studies in which thousands of individual human beings, women and men, express some of their deepest needs and satisfactions and frustrations in their relationships with each other. This is powerful and profoundly moving material. It is powerful because the Hite Reports are a medium that has made it possible for a large number of human beings to speak openly and candidly about needs the expression of which society has tended to censor or limit, and the satisfaction of which society has often condemned and punished. It is profoundly moving in the way that all human revelations of deep and persistent but frustrated needs are moving. It’s not too strong to say that I find in the Hite Reports a massive cry of the human heart, a cry for the open recognition of the fundamental needs so eloquently revealed. This open recognition is a historical and moral necessity. We find ourselves in the midst of a vital struggle to revise a long history of repression of the distinctively human need to be able to express our needs, together with unjust condemnation of our attempts to fulfill them. The historical and moral impor¬ tance of the Hite Reports lies precisely in their challenge to this history of repression and suppression, which has kept us ignorant of each other’s deepest feelings. Nothing is more tragic than human beings misusing the brief time

xxviii

Philosophical Reflections on the Hite Reports

they are allowed on this earth by suppressing their own needs, by failing to recognize each other’s needs and so failing to fulfill each other. Responsible and moral treatment of each other and of ourselves requires knowledge of others and self-knowledge. We must know what each other’s deep, often unexpressed needs are if we are to treat each other humanly, responsibly, justly, lovingly. And I must know that others have deep-seated needs like mine if I’m not to mis-know myself and so condemn myself as^a freak or a misfit or a depraved animal. The Hite Reports are essays in knowledge of others and also in knowledge of ourselves. In them we have a classic example of how science and morality can go hand in hand: they offer a knowledge of human beings directed at a future in which we may better fulfill each other because we better understand each other. JOSEPH P. FELL

Presidential Professor of Philosophy Bucknell University

Quantifying the Emotions: Methodological Observations on the Hite Report Trilogy*

Quantification and analysis of attitudes and emotions is one of the most difficult tasks faced by social scientists—and one rarely attempted, almost never on such a large scale as in Hite’s work. It has been one of Hite’s contributions to devise an excellent methodology for studying the attitudes and emotions of a large population, while at the same time retaining a rich qualitative base: extensive data in people’s own words about their deepest feelings. When analyzing emotions and attitudes in depth, it has been customary in the social/psychological sciences to use extremely small samples; indeed, Freud based whole books on a handful of subjects. Thus for Hite to have used the small samples typical of psychological studies would have been quite legitimate. However, she also took on the more difficult goal of trying to develop a larger and more representative sample, while still retaining the in-depth qualities of smaller studies. She does the latter by allowing thousands of people to speak freely instead of forcing them to choose from preselected categories—in es¬ sence, predefining them and prepackaging them, as with so many studies. It is a method that is hard on the researcher, requiring analysis of thousands of individual replies to hundreds of open-ended questions, an analysis that in¬ volves many steps. Hite’s work has been erroneously criticized by some members of the popu¬ lar press as being “unscientific” because her respondents, though numerous, are not a “random sample.” However, scientists and scholars in the field of method-

*See also Essay on the Methodology of the Hite Reports, page 769.

XXX

Otiantifying the Emotions

ology and opinion sampling know that for many kinds of studies, and Hite’s is one of them, a very large non-random sample generating rich data is prefera¬ ble to a randomly chosen sample. A “random sample” does not guarantee representativeness; frequently, in practice, there is a problem of “who didn’t respond.” In this kind of sampling, to be perfectly mathematically “representa¬ tive,” all of those chosen must respond. However, in most cases, no such perfection is achieved. Thus, to put it bluntly, there are almost no ‘‘random samples.”* As John L. Sullivan, the noted research theorist, puts it, “Most of the work in the social sciences is not based on random samples; in fact, many if not most of the articles in psychology journals are based on data from college students, and then generalized. . . . Interestingly, these small and non-repre¬ sentative samples have not been criticized in the same way Hite’s larger and more representative sample has been.” Hite’s large and rich sample of 15,000 is an excellent achievement in itself. Moreover, Hite has matched her sample carefully to the U.S. population at large; the demographic breakdown of the sample population corresponds quite closely to that of the general U.S. popula¬ tion. Another hallmark of Hite’s methodology is the anonymity guaranteed participants. It is this which makes it possible for her respondents to speak so freely about their most private feelings and thoughts, and ensures that they do not feel they must hold back any of the truth about these very personal matters for fear of being ridiculed, judged, or simply “known.” It is in fact because the respondents are guaranteed anonymity that one can be confident of the accu¬ racy of Hite’s findings. And indeed studies in three other countries testing the findings of the first Hite Report have replicated her basic results. As Robert L. Emerson of UCLA explains, “Hite’s methodology is perfectly suited to her aims . . . the distinctive quality of her data is exactly that it allows men and women to talk about the subjective meaning and experience of a variety of personal matters. The purpose of her research is then to describe and categorize the varieties of such experience ... so that the whole range of such experiences can be described . . . [and she] has more than fulfilled this goal.” Hite is straightforward about her procedures and has done as much and more than other researchers to explain her methods. She makes absolutely clear what she is doing methodologically—in fact, her degree of clarity is not frequently achieved in social science research. There is a growing literature advocating the use of methods similar to Hite’s in the social sciences. Feminist scholars in particular have developed a sophis¬ ticated critique of standard research theory, demonstrating its many built-in biases and distortions (see, for example, the anthology edited by Sandra Har¬ ding and Merrill Hintikka, Discovering Reality). Hite’s work can thus be seen

* I herefore most survey research today tries to match its samples demographically to the general popula¬ tion in other ways, by, for example, weighting responses to conform to the population profile, as Hite does.

Quantifying the Emotions

xxxi

as part of this general rethinking, one of the first studies, in fact, to put new theories into practice. Nancy Tuana of the University of Texas at Dallas writes: “For centuries, through the guise of science, men have been constructing theories of woman’s nature. Although women have been the object of study, our experiences and feelings have not been taken seriously. Shere Hite’s work provides a model of a methodology that is based on women’s experience. Hite has rejected the silencing of women by recognizing that a theory about women’s ways of loving must be rooted in our efforts to give voice to our own experiences. Her work will be valued not only for the insights she provides, but also for her revolutionary approach.” And Barbara Ehrenreich, whose background is in the biological sciences, notes that “'Fables, graphs, correlation coefficients, etc., do not, in and of themselves make a study ‘scientific.’ In fact, I would say that any study of human behavior that does not include—and highlight—the element of subjec¬ tive experience is, in a fundamental sense, unscientific. This was what was wrong with the Kinsey Report and Masters and Johnson’s work, and what makes the Hite Reports so ground-breaking: at last we know something about love as women and men experience it and that is the most important thing we can know about it.” In summary, as a scientist and as a human being who obviously cares very much about her subjects, Shere Hite presents in the Hite Reports a deeply penetrating portrait of our culture, based on empirical data, giving us insights into who we are and where we are going. This work is an enormous contribu¬ tion.

GLADYS F.NGEL LANG

Professor of Communications, Political Science and Sociology University of Washington, Seattle

-

■ **

V

•

_

'

The Hite Reports: Charting an Ideological Revolution in Progress

This book is the final volume in a series of three books dealing with private life and gender definition in the United States, one which combines philosophical discussion with impressive empirical research. Published internationally with widespread influence, these books comprise complex and fascinating portraits of a crucial fifteen-year period in American culture—a period in which society came into an extraordinary confrontation with the traditional ideas of home and family. This confrontation is examined in the Hite Reports by looking at what really is there—i.e., documentation consisting of the responses of thousands of people to anonymous, open-ended questionnaires—rather than at what reign¬ ing theory tells us should be there, and by a debate carried on sometimes among the participants, sometimes between Hite and the participants, a debate based on a coherent theoretical perspective. Perhaps we will look back and say that what is documented here is the ideological revolution of the end of the twen¬ tieth century.

The Hite Report on female sexuality: The redefinition of sexuality: sex is cultural Hite began this project in 1971 when, on leave of absence from graduate school, she became involved with the feminist movement, and taking seriously the idea that the personal is the political, undertook a major effort to find out what really happens in women’s sexual lives.

XXXIV

The Hite Reports

From 1972-76 she distributed a lengthy essay questionnaire to women all over the country; in 1976, on publication of the findings from the responses of 3,500 women, she explained her goals: “The purpose of this project is to let women define their own sexuality—instead of doctors or other (usually male) authorities. Women are the real experts on their own sexuality; they know how they feel and what they experience, without needing anyone to tell them. This is not to say that Masters and Johnson’s and Kinsey’s work is not invaluable—it is. However, their work continued to view sex through certain cultural blinders which kept them from understanding the whole truth about female sexuality. In this study, for the first time, women themselves speak out about how they feel about sex, how they define their own sexuality, and what sexuality means to them.” Hite’s background in social and cultural history helped her to provide a cultural framework for this discussion, to see female sexuality for what it is, rather than how it fit into the prevalent patriarchal ideology. Hite’s basic finding was that 70 percent of women do not have orgasms from intercourse, but do have them from more direct clitoral stimulation. This testimony from thousands of women blew the lid off the question of female orgasm. Masters and Johnson had brought up the importance of the clitoris, but had emphasized that women should get enough clitoral stimulation from simple thrusting during intercourse to lead to orgasm; if they did not, they had a “sexiTal dysfunction.” Kinsey had hinted at this issue by noting briefly that women like cuddling and that they have their highest rate of orgasm during masturbation, but he did not define masturbation beyond a few sentences, nor did he come to the logical conclusion implied, or reach the new understanding of women’s sexuality that Hite formulated. Ann Koedt had first questioned whether women have orgasms during intercourse and suggested that the issue involved a patriarchal definition of female sexuality in her ground breaking 1968 essay “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm.” Following publication of Hite’s work, one commentator placed the discus¬ sion in historical perspective: “Ann Koedt’s . . . ‘The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm’ and Shere Hite’s The Hite Report. . . are unique discussions of female sexuality because they treat sexuality as the unity of both human biology and psychology imbedded in a political formation. Advancing from the personal ‘sharing of experiences,’ Koedt and Hite both revealed how men have con¬ structed sexuality to their advantage. In particular, Hite illustrated that within the dominant pattern of heterosexual interaction male pleasure is primary. The importance of her work lies in the fact that Hite clearly views sexual patterns as social constructions. Her book not only sheds light on contemporary sexual practice, but works to direct the creation of noninstitutionalized sexuality.”* Hite’s documentation with such a large sample of exactly how women do

Rhonda Gottlieb,

'43—65-

The Political Economy of Sexuality” in Review of Radical Political Economics 16 (i):

The Hite Reports

xxxv

have orgasm easily—during self-stimulation—and that they do not usually have orgasms during simple intercourse without additional stimulation, as well as her declaration that there was nothing “wrong” with this, that if the majority of women said this, it must be “normal” for women—no matter what “profes¬ sional sexologists” said—was, after an initial period of shock among some in the sex research community, accepted widely, and eventually Hite received the distinguished service award from the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists. Hite’s finding that women could easily reach orgasm with clitoral stimula¬ tion (although society had said women had a “problem” having orgasms) also raised a further question—i.e., is sex as we know it (the basic set of physical activities with its focus on coitus) a social or a biological phenomenon? Hite had raised this question in the sense that she showed that for the majority of women, intercourse itself doesn’t necessarily lead to orgasm, although clitoral stimulation does. Therefore we are forced to ask ourselves whether sex was “created” for pleasure and intimacy, or simply for reproduction. If the former, then the fact that the kind of stimulation the majority of women need for orgasm should be included in the definition of sex forces us to consider rede¬ signing sex. If women had been compelled to hide how they could easily reach orgasm during masturbation, then the definition of sex, it follows, is sexist and cultur¬ ally linked. Hite, again, writing in 1976: “Our whole society’s definition of sex is sexist—sex for the overwhelming majority of people consists of foreplay, eventually followed by vaginal penetration and then by intercourse, ending eventually in male orgasm. This is a sexist definition of sex, oriented around male orgasm and the needs of reproduction. This definition is cultural, not biological.” In other words, Hite’s study showed that sex is part of the whole cultural picture; a woman’s place in sex mirrors her place in the rest of society. Al¬ though until that time, female sexuality had been seen essentially as a response to male sexuality, this was not a scientific or objective summation of the facts. It was a view of female sexuality through a certain ideological perspective. Thus, The Hite Report linked the definition of sex as we know it to a particular society and historical cultural tradition, saying sex as we know it is created by our social system; it is a social institution. While it is currently fashionable in academic circles to credit French philos¬ opher Michel Foucault with the discovery that sex is cultural, that the way sexuality is defined is tied to a certain historical time and place, certain social structures, in fact, the idea grew out of early feminist discussions which were widely circulated both in the U.S. and France. The Hite Report contains the earliest full-scale statement of the clear connection between sexuality, its forma¬ tion, shaping and definition, and the society that channels it in certain direc¬ tions. Carrying these thoughts further, into an “un-definition” of sexuality, the

X X X V 1

The Hite Reports

first Hite Report continued, “Touching friends and sitting together intimately should be possible. . . . Intense physical contact should be possible in many varied ways. In short, our whole idea of sex must be reevaluated.” Not the least of the contributions of the first Hite Report was the presenting of women’s own voices on this topic for the first time—as Hite said, “The statements women sent were full of beautifully written, moving descriptions of their feelings—an anonymous and powerful, deep communication, almost a soul to soul communication, from the women who answered to all the women of the world. Receiving these replies was one of the most emotionally fulfilling experiences of my life—and it is this I want to share with other women who read the book.”

The Hite Report on Male Sexuality: toward a new definition of masculinity The second Hite Report, The Hite Report on Male Sexuality, was the first study of how men feel about themselves, their relationships and their sexuality: no such book had ever been done, certainly none using a data base approaching Hite’s in size and representativeness. Although comparisons are often made with Kinsey, in fact Kinsey measured the frequency of sexual behaviors, not attitudes or feelings about sex, and he was dealing only with sexuality, not love or relationships. Here also, Hite followed the format of anonymous essay questionnaires, asking men questions not only about sexuality, but also about love—about how it feels to fall in love for the first time, about their feelings concerning growing up with their fathers, their current relationships with women, their marriages, and what they would like to change about their sexuality and their lives if they could. All told, The Hite Report on men presents a staggering picture of men, told in men’s own words. The heart of this book is about ideology, that is, about why people behave as they do—and specifically, about the patriarchal ideology and how it permeates men’s behaviors in every area, including sexuality, which is supposedly biologically determined. In other words, what we call “sex”—as stated in the first Hite Report—comes down to a reflection of attitudes and values (i.e., an ideology) that extend through large segments of the overall society. These sexual behaviors are socially created, not just biological; further, this socially directed institution of sex does not equally value the needs and possibilities of women and men. In effect, with this volume, Hite was beginning a re-evaluation of “male psychology” and “male sexuality,” which are so intimately linked—something rarely done,* since the assumption has been that the psychology of men is * Psychologists earlier in the century such as Karen Horney and Beatrice Hinkle commented and wrote on these issues.

Tbe Hite Reports

xxxvii

human psychology itself, that the way men are is “natural”: not a socially constructed set of behaviors and perceptions, but “biological human nature in action.”

1 o understand “male sexuality” it is necessary to understand the culture and what it informs men “male sexuality” and “masculinity” are—the whole context in which men are taught to see/express their “sexuality,” and, espe¬ cially, to see their emotional world. Men are offered a very limited repertoire of admissible (or at least publicly admissible) emotions; if a man feels other emotions, he must hide them. Therefore, most men, if asked on the street for their opinion, are quick to say, “Well, I don’t think I’m a typical male.” And they are probably right; there are almost no “typical males,” since few humans could live with the limited set of feelings they are “permitted.” Furthermore, not being allowed to express their emotions, not even (in a way) being allowed to feel all the things humans feel, makes men confused and uncomfortable when asked to talk about their “feelings,” and this, in turn, causes deep problems for them in their relationships with women. While in this book Hite has sympathetically pointed out the difficulties for many men—the awkwardness of some male rituals, how many men are stuck in these ritual patterns, this system, and suffering from it—possibly all this was a shock to men, since they are not used to seeing themselves as the object of studies, not to mention a study done by a woman. Perhaps because it is so shocking for men to be treated as a specific group, rather than as a universal standard, the second Hite Report received dismayed and sometimes even luna¬ tic reactions from some male critics. Hite, in effect, was receiving criticism for her bold dissection of the current socio-sexual syste;m: by daring to claim that socialization pressures the male to adapt and perform in a particular sexual manner, she challenged the usual and highly touted idea that male physiology and evolutionary processes create and control male sexuality. As a result, she was subject to a deeply entrenched prejudice based upon her sex and the topic of her study. In effect, male critics attacked her expertise and her commentary on a matter which men consider to be extremely personal and important to their sense of being male. In other words, she was viewed as treading on sacred ground, an area which so greatly forms the male ego. Again, in this volume, Hite stressed the cultural relativism of sexuality. In a section on the politics of intercourse, she argued that a man’s “sexual drive” is not a biological imperative, but that our society’s definition of sex is culturally created: if you can show that there are cultural pressures on people to behave in a certain way, then you cannot make the assumption that the behavior is a biological given. But what we know as “male sexuality,” Hite explains, is not only a socially constructed but also a very limited version of what male sexuality might be. Just as men are offered a very narrow range of emotions by the culture, also their sexuality is narrowly defined and subtlety inhibited. As she states in the preface

The Hite Reports

xxxviii

to that work, society tells men to “define love as sex, and sex as penetration and ejaculation within a woman . . . [therefore] it is not simply by looking at the small details of men’s sexual lives and understanding how they may hurt or give pleasure that will change our idea of what male sexuality is—discussing them rationally as if more “pleasure” were the aim—because that is not the definition of male sexuality—male sexuality is not based on simple pleasure. Male sexual¬ ity, and masculinity, is based on a larger ideology; [in fact, “sex” in general] is not so much about pleasure as it is about a certain emotional symbolism' that is a part of that ideology, a ritual drama re-enacted over and over. ”* Hite, in essence, is appealing for a redefinition of masculinity, for men to stop and look at what it is they are doing with their lives. This is a book full of possibilities for the future.

Women and Love: redefining the nature of emotional life I have always felt that “love,” perhaps because it is considered to be the center, if not the totality of a woman’s life, is a risky business, and one to which feminists should address much energy and ingenuity. When I was in graduate school in the early 60s, I was appalled by the abuse that my female colleagues sustained in the pursuit and achievement of love. Indeed, I organized a “syndi¬ cate” (modeled after Milo Minderbinder’s in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22) to resist such abuse, collectively taking the initiative in dating and blacklisting men who mistreated members of the syndicate. The outrage which resulted from these efforts convinced me that I was tampering with what men considered their sacred rights. I continued this work later, when, as a member of the Chicago West Side Group, I led a drive to organize women in singles bars to rationalize and dignify the pursuit of love. But although the members of the group had previously demonstrated extraordinary courage, facing police, tear gas, going to jail in draft resistance demonstrations, when it came to the singles bars, their courage faltered. The project was abandoned because only two of us would regularly show up for planned actions at the bars, no matter how many had promised to come. At an early meeting of feminists from across the country in 1968, I spoke of the need for a task force of feminists to fight the oppression and dehumanization of women that went along with our pursuit and achieve¬ ment of love. But the politics of heterosexual love and romance have never been fully explored nor documented on a large scale. In the first Hite Report, in 1976, Hite had announced her intention of studying women’s feelings about love, asking women to define the nature of lovet—because “it is in the emotional dynamics of love relationships, and in the psychological assumptions, that stereotypes * The Hite Report on Male Sexuality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981), p. xvii. tSee The Hite Report (New York: Macmillan, 1976), Chapter 6.

The Hite Reports

X X X 1 X

about women remain most deeply embedded.”* And also, women have been defined by the society for a very long time in terms of “love”—i.e., told that they must raise a family, be loved by a man, married, or face being an “outcast.” Much of this feeling, that women’s basic function in life is to be loving and nurturing, still remains; it has not been fully accepted that women are complete above and beyond their biological capabilities, or ability to take care of, “ser¬ vice” others. I his does not mean, of course, that it is “wrong” to be nurturing; the question here is whether all of the nurturing of society is supposed to be done by women. In particular, there is a bias against women that often comes out in personal relationships—i.e., that men express by their behavior, actions and statements to women in private. Love between women and men is an area that needs to be analyzed more deeply than it has been. As Carol Gilligan has pointed out, “Among the most pressing items on the agenda for research on adult develop¬ ment is the need to delineate in women’s own terms the experience of their adult life.”t Several earlier works broached these issues. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex opened up some of the deeper areas of women’s concerns about love, bringing out poignantly the mixed sense that love is great and yet somehow involves pain and humiliation for women—so that, according to de Beauvoir at the time, we finally may come to learn to love humiliation in love. In the 1970s Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics shook the world with its statements about love between women and men, exposing the violence in much of men’s writing about women they love, or supposedly love. Ti-Grace Atkinson, in Amazon Odyssey, coined the phrase, “Scratch his love, and you’ll find your fear.” Shulamith Firestone and Laura X also presented interesting theoretical state¬ ments, and additional work was done by Elaine Walster-Hatfield and Dorothy Tennov. However, after the early 70s, issues of love between women and men did not receive as much attention as issues of sexuality (notable exceptions were Jessie Bernard, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Barbara Ehrenreich and Andrea Dworkin). Indeed, in a strange sort of reverse Victorianism, theorizing and writing about sex became more acceptable than writing about love, and some interest¬ ing theoretical works were produced by Alison Jaggar, Catherine Stimpson, and a group of women editing Powers of Desire. But feminists rarely confronted the politics of heterosexual love head-on. Rather, two trends, both of which skirted the issue, arose. One went off men entirely, embarking on a stunningly • This explains the explosion of popular psychology books in which the subject of relationships between women and men is now being talked about: as women become more and more unafraid of the social system and of men, more independent financially and ideologically, yet find themselves in love with or living with men who still express (perhaps unconsciously) old stereotypes about women’s “nature”— expecting women will be loving, take second place emotionally in relationships, not being angry when the man does not reciprocate with this emotional support—women wonder what to do about the situation, whether to leave or stay, what to think. tCarol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 172-73.

The Hite Reports

xl

revolutionary exploration of how women can love women without reservation. However, a sectarian part of this trend claimed that women still attached to males were “consorting with the enemy,” thereby dismissing millions of women who had associations with men either by choice or circumstance. The other trend was of the position that “Men are changing, so why talk about it? There is no problem—a smart woman should be able to find herself one of the ‘new men’ out there.” Thus heterosexual love relationships became almost a taboo subject in femi¬ nist circles, not politically “correct” or “relevant.” And yet this is one of the most important political topics there is, if one takes seriously the original slogan of the women’s movement, that is, “the personal is political.” Academic psychological studies in recent years have come to focus on gender issues, but have also shied away from the study of love and emotion, perhaps since they are not easily quantified, and therefore the work might not be considered “scientific” by colleagues. Studying love, in other words, is difficult, and could easily leave one open to attack—as Elaine Walster-Hatfield found in 1972 when, after obtaining a government grant to study love, she was berated publicly by Senator William Proxmire, who thought the taxpayers’ money was being wasted on such a frivolous topic, and as a result lost her grant. Nevertheless, in recent years, Pepper Schwartz and Phillip Blumstein of the University of Washington have published in this area, as have philosophers such as Joseph Fell, Irving Singer and Emilie Rorty. In Women and Love, Hite and the 4,500 women participating begin the process of re-naming what is going on in personal life, re-seeing the emotions involved and the patterns of behavior, debating with each other the definition of love and various emotions felt for another—not only for men but also for women. What do women say here about love, and what is going on in their lives? Basically, whether married or single, most say they do not feel emotionally satisfied in their relationships with men, often finding themselves frustrated, alienated, distanced and unable to break through to a man who doesn’t see what is missing. Many women leave these relationships, while others stay, but often stay physically only, looking elsewhere for their primary emotional connec¬ tion—often with women friends. The frustration women feel in these situa¬ tions, in fact, the tragic aspect of many relationships—is staggering and pro¬ foundly moving. We know that the home has been women’s ghetto, and were surprised when we first began to hear of the incidence of physical violence in these private settings. Now we see here something harder to pinpoint, that is the terrible emotional draining of women that has been and is going on in relation¬ ships, the subtle ways women are badgered emotionally in private (even just by “standard” and “acceptable” usage of language which inherently puts women down)—and still expected to provide loving and nurturing. Love relationships take place in private, there is no one to witness what goes

The Hite Reports

xli

on there, to name what is happening; each individual has to name it for herself, by herself—amidst the confusion of also loving and perhaps being loved—and doubt that she is ever right in her naming. (If a relationship is painful, a woman may feel she cannot or “should” not complain, lest she be seen as having “problems.”) So, many of these things are not said in daily life—in fact, some of the voices we hear here seem almost to be voices from hidden bedrooms, sobs never before heard by anyone—or voices surfacing finally after months and years of numbness, of having almost forgotten how to speak because of the futility of it, since one’s own “voice” was never heard. And yet there is also in these voices a great strength and determination to be heard, to speak, to no longer remain silent or be told what “reality” is. The documentation women give here of their inner emotional lives should finally provide much of the material necessary to replace the Freudian-de¬ scended systems of “women’s psychology.” Was Freud wrong about women? Yes, indeed, as I first argued in 1968:* Personality theory in general, whether Freudian or not, has missed the central importance cf social expectation and culture in determining what we do and how we feel, and thus is largely irrelevant to an understanding of our lives and our behavior. As I showed, Freudians and others can neither predict what we do, nor seriously explain what we have done. Nonetheless, the idea of women’s inherent “passivity” or “masochism” has remained a bedrock of the cultural myth about women, a myth strengthened by the cultural recidivism of the current era. Here this myth is annihilated by a large body of proof and docu¬ mentation. What women say in Women and Love supersedes Freu