Melancholy Femininity and Obsessive—Compulsive Masculinity: Sex Differences in Melancholy Gender

The author offers a revision of melancholy gender (Butler, 1995 Butler, J. 1995. Melancholy gender.. Psychoanal. Dial., 5: 165–180. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) in which sex differences are theorized. Drawing on contemporary psychoanalytic feminist theory that emphasizes the mother's role as primary caretaker and as pre-Oedipal object for both boys and girls, the author suggests that, in heterosexual development and within heterosexual cultures, same-sex object-desire is likely to be unavowedly lost for girls but preemptively foreclosed for boys. While the theory of melancholy gender does not differentiate between loss and foreclosure, the author argues that this is an important distinction such that Freud's two preconditions of melancholy—unavowed loss and ambivalent identification—are more likely to be part of female development than of male development, leading to melancholy femininity in girls and obsessive-compulsive masculinity in boys. This argument allows the theory of melancholy gender to speak to the empirical and clinical finding that femininity and depression tend to be associated whereas masculinity and depression do not.     

“Sex,Gender, and Love on a Global Scale. A Review of: Love and Globalization: Transformations of Intimacy in the Contemporary World. edited by Mark B. Padilla,Jennifer S. Hirsch,Miguel Muñoz-Laboy,Robert E. Sember, & Richard G. Parker.”

We investigated the sexual relationships of married Chinese men and women living in Beijing and Shanghai. Within the framework of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (IEMSS), we also examined factors related to sexual satisfaction. Completed questionnaires were returned by 193 men and 231 women. In general, respondents reported moderate levels of sexual and relationship satisfaction. Overall, respondents were neither erotophobic nor erotophilic and reported a frequency of affectionate and sexual behavior between “2 or 3 times a month” and “once or twice a week” and at least one sexual concern and for problem. Contrary to predictions based on the cultural message that sexual pleasure is restricted to men, the women reported significantly greater sexual satisfaction than did the men, and men and women did not differ in their reports of sexual rewards or relationship satisfaction. Further, men described their sexual relationship as more costly than did women. However, women reported more sexual concerns than did men and were also more erotophobic. Men reported more sexual concerns for their partner than women did for their partner. Strong support was found for the IEMSS, such that the more that rewards exceeded costs, relative rewards exceeded relative costs, one's levels of rewards and costs were perceived to be equal to one's partner's, and the greater the relationship satisfaction, the greater the level of sexual satisfaction. Greater sexual satisfaction was also associated with a greater frequency of affectionate and sexual behavior, fewer sexual concerns and problems, and greater relationship satisfaction. These results are discussed in the context of the impact of official repression of many forms of sexual expression in China in the past and the need for enhancement of the sexual relationships of Chinese men and women.     

Love the Sin—Pedagogy,Pupils, and Psychology Commentary on Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance by Janet R. Jakobsen and Ann Pelligrini

This article examines the author's reactions to teaching Janet Jakobsen's and Ann Pellegini's Love the Sin in a course titled “Contemporary Issues in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies” at Dartmouth College. He examines not only the students' reactions and the points at which they can or cannot grasp the book's arguments, but also his own responses to their reactions. At the center of the essay is his realization that the students, having been brought up in a liberal mode of “tolerance,” have little access to Jakobsen and Pellegrini's social or political concept of “sexual freedom”; and, while they completely eschew state regulation of sexuality, they do not view it as an essential human right, but rather as a private matter.