Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men, Women and Couples (6 page)

Science has certainly been instrumental in freeing us from many irrational superstitions and fears. But every culture, no matter how advanced, still has its taboos. A taboo is a prohibition collectively shared by a society with a force so strong that it is rarely, if ever, questioned or even discussed. It just is.

Every society also has mores and traditions intended to guide or control behavior. These evolve out of the give-and-take of socio-political discussions and battles. Taboos are quite different. Sigmund Freud made this key distinction:

The taboo restrictions are different from religious or moral prohibitions; they are differentiated from moral prohibitions by failing to be included in a system which declares abstinence in general to be necessary and gives reasons for this necessity. The taboo prohibitions lack all justification and are of unknown origin. They are taken as a matter of course by those under their dominance (Freud, 1913).

Taboos, then, have an all-encompassing quality-like the air we breathewhich makes them highly resistant to logic, scientific inquiry or even first-hand experience. Although taboos are products of culture, it's almost as if they are operate apart from it, invisibly.

Some taboos are almost universally accepted in cultures that embrace them, with little or no ambivalence or emotional charge. In the US, for example, the taboo against eating the meat of dogs or cats is of this type. We're socialized to feel that this would be incredibly distasteful and the issue never arises again. If, however, we were to find ourselves in a situation where no other food was available except a dog or cat, we would be thrown into deep ambivalence. Some of us would probably come close to starvation before violating the taboo.

Other taboos are accompanied by strong ambivalence and a high emotional charge. The incest taboo is the best example of this type. Because many people experience at least mild erotic responses toward a parent or sibling, the taboo against acting upon or even acknowledging these desires infuses them with great psychological meaning.

Both types of taboos have a chilling effect on behavior and thought. However, taboos of the second type don't necessarily eliminate the impulses they seek to forbid. Instead, taboo desires go underground, both individually and collectively, where they take on a larger-than-life, almost cosmic significance. In this way, taboos can imbue forbidden impulses or curiosities with over-inflated significance. In some instances, the ambivalence, guilt, and shame caused by a taboo actually function as aphrodisiacs.*
Freud pointed out that in Polynesian, the root meaning of taboo is both sacred and forbidden or unclean. The opposite of taboo is simply ordinary, commonplace, or readily accessible.

All of this goes a long way toward explaining the profoundly mixed feelings of so many of us toward the anal area and anal pleasure. There's no other way to understand the frequent responses of rational men and women, even scientists, when asked straightforward questions about the anus and anal pleasure, especially anal sex. More often than not they are unwilling to discuss the subject, or else begin to stammer or show other signs of embarrassment. Often the effects of the anal taboo are couched in rational-sounding generalities like, "Anal intercourse is dangerous," which fail to meet even minimal standards of logic or science. If anal pleasure and eroticism were simply a bad idea, objections-moral, legal, or physiological-could be freely discussed without self-consciousness. In actuality, most people can more readily talk about murder and rape-staples of the local news-than anal sexuality.

Like the incest taboo, the anal taboo tends to be highly charged, though usually not as strongly. This is true because the sensitivity of the anal area assures that, beginning early in life, virtually everyone will feel pleasurable sensations there. To some degree, then, negative messages about the anus are bound to contradict actual experience, creating ambivalence. For some, the discomfort of mixed feelings can be managed by suppressing all thoughts and feelings related to anal pleasure-a common tactic. Others are clearly interested and repulsed, fascinated and ashamed.

Charged by the extra excitement of the forbidden, some people become anally obsessed. This can be a problem for those who feel that the more naughty a sexual behavior or fantasy is, the more important it becomes, almost as a matter of principle, to do it. Such men and women may engage in anal sex as a symbol of sexual freedom, whether they actually like it or not. And some may do it with a reckless abandon characteristic of those who aren't exactly choosing their actions.

When under the influence of an unspoken taboo, caught in the crossfire of conflicting forces, it becomes difficult to recognize the forbidden object or behavior for what it actually is. Instead, the artificial intensity stirred up by the taboo becomes the our focus. The realities that lie behind the taboo can easily be ignored in the struggle.

SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE ANAL TABOO

TABOOS AREN'T just psychological phenomena; they have social significance as well. The incest taboo, for example, helps to reduce severe conflict among family members and between generations. The taboo against eating dogs and cats maintains the special feelings we wish to have about our pets. The functions of a taboo are not always clearly discernible because they become blurred as the taboo is passed on from generation to generation. Since taboos are intricately woven into the collective psyche, their original purpose often fades into obscurity.

Although the anal taboo has never been systematically studied by social scientists, we can speculate about its social functions. Cross-cultural data about sexual mores and behavior strongly point to four likely functions. First, negative attitudes toward the anal area appear to be universally tied to concerns about cleanliness. All societies encourage cleanliness, though ideas vary widely about what is required. The idea that cleanliness is necessary for spiritual purity is quite common. Often, specific substances like certain foods, mud, urine, mucus and feces trigger strong feelings of revulsion, thereby symbolizing and enforcing much broader concern about avoiding contamination and disease. In short, the anal taboo fosters the emotion of disgust.

Second, the idea that an inherent conflict exists between the spirit and the flesh is prevalent. By intensifying negative emotions about one area of the body, the anal taboo expresses and perpetuates an overall lack of ease with the physical self. In this way, the taboo makes concrete the conflict between spirit and body, increases guilt, and thereby reinforces religious doctrine.

Third, almost all cultures associate receiving anal intercourse with femininity, in part because of its physiological similarity to vaginal intercourse. With few exceptions, a man who receives anal intercourse is viewed as less manly. Therefore, another possible function of the anal taboo is the maintenance of strict sex-role differentiation. Sexual receptivity-and all that it symbolizes-is expected of women and strongly discouraged in men. If anal pleasure is prohibited, then the chance of men receiving anal intercourse decreases considerably.

Finally, acceptance of anal sexual behavior is virtually always correlated with acceptance of at least some forms of homosexuality. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that another function of the anal taboo is to bolster sanctions against homosexual contact, particularly between men.

This period in human history is ripe for challenging the anal taboo. Scientific advances in the study of health and disease make it more possible for decisions about cleanliness and health to be rational rather than emotional, although emotions still do and always will play a part. The mind-body split is being directly challenged in philosophy, psychology and medicine. Similarly, the value of strict sex-role differentiation is being questioned by thoughtful women and men. At the same time, negative attitudes toward homosexuality are softening, at least in the developed world. For all these reasons, the functions once served by the anal taboo are no longer so pressing.

Those who wish to counter the complex effects of the anal taboo must focus on two central questions: What is the potential of the anal area for healthy, self-affirming sensuality and eroticism when freed from the stranglehold of taboo? And how can we go about freeing ourselves? This book is intended to help you investigate these questions and discover your own answers.

THE ANAL TABOO IN THE HELPING PROFESSIONS

EVERY CULTURE has its experts who are believed to possess special knowledge or wisdom. Traditionally, religious leaders and healers have been the most revered authorities. In our society we have increasingly turned to medical and mental health professionals. We hope that their research and experience will shed light on behaviors conducive to or incompatible with health and well-being.

Unfortunately, helping professionals are by no means immune to the power of taboos. Scientific inquiry is inherently slow, always incomplete, and subject to personal interpretation and bias. And the tendency of taboos to function outside of consciousness assures that perspectives on reality supported by the taboo will be taken for granted, not questioned. The anal taboo has had just this kind of influence on how a disturbing number of professionals look at anal sexuality.

THE ANAL TABOO IN MEDICINE. The most prestigious professional helpers in our society are physicians. The medical community has always been profoundly influenced by the anal taboo. In proctology, the branch of medicine specifically concerned with the anus and rectum, there has been an almost universal reluctance to acknowledge that these organs have potential erotic significance-especially for "normal" people.

The first proctologic study of the medical aspects of anal intercourse was published in the 1950s with the title, "Proctologic Disorders of Sex Deviates" (Feigen, 1954). Supposedly, this judgmental title was necessary for publication at that time. Even so, the article was rejected by several respected medical journals. While the article was a breakthrough for its day-at least someone was willing to raise the subject-it confirmed the prevailing belief that anal intercourse is inherently dangerous. It described in detail the medical problems of men who received anal intercourse regularly. The sample was highly unrepresentative, consisting entirely of men who sought medical help, or those incarcerated in penal institutions where anal rape is often a ritual expression of an aggressive, sometimes violent pecking order.

The situation has improved somewhat since then. One turning point came in the 1970s when increasing numbers of openly gay physicians set up practices in major urban centers. Gradually, sexual experimenters of all sexual orientations heard about doctors with whom they could talk honestly about anal pleasure and problems. Consequently, some of these physicians became experts on the subject. And a few actually shared their knowledge with professional and lay audiences.

Nowadays, physicians receive at least basic training in sexuality and have at least some awareness about anal sex. But for the most part, anal activities, especially intercourse, are still viewed as highly problematic. That so few doctors, including proctologists, have transcended the anal taboo is understandable in light of the fact that they have had to treat, usually with little or no discussion, medical problems caused by uninformed, painful, sometimes forced, and often reckless anal experimentation. It's hardly surprising that they would tend to view anal sex as unhealthy.

In addition, physicians are unlikely to be aware of the experiences of those who enjoy anal stimulation comfortably and safely. Even after a lifetime of clinical practice, it is quite possible for a doctor never to meet (or know that he or she has met) such a person. Of course, acquiring a distorted view of human experience is a problem inherent in all the helping professions, and is not exclusively the result of taboo influences. After all, people rarely consult professionals to tell them how good they feel or how much fun they're having.

For these reasons, the medical community, which could be a valuable source of information, experience and expertise about the anus, has had little to say except, "Don't do it!" It's not unusual for people who enjoy anal intercourse and who seek help for anal medical problems to be told that they must give up this form of pleasure in order to have a healthy anus. I've heard dozens of reports of doctors saying, especially to gay men, "If you'd use your anus only for its intended purpose, you wouldn't be seeing me," when they know that the vast majority of their patients with identical symptoms aren't practicing anal sex. Freed from the blinders imposed by the anal taboo, physicians could better hear the concerns of their patients and offer constructive suggestions on how the anus can be experienced pleasurably and with a minimum of risk.