Polymorphous Perversion.

Freud defined "polymorphous perversion" as "the ability to find erotic pleasure out of any part of the body"; his conjecture rested around the idea of psychosexual development being most active between birth and five years old, where it would enter a period of "latency" until the onset of puberty. During this "latency", these polymorphous ideals would be repressed into the subconscious; presumably to re-emerge later in life in the distortion of sexual identity, and thus leading to the formation of pansexuality, bisexuality, or anything deviating from the heteronormacy Freud propagated. Freud alleged that this "perversion" (N.B. Not perverse in its contemporary sense, but just in a deviation from societal and adult norms) explains ideas of prostitution and other associated drives, professions, feelings, and emotions. Naturally, as Freud has been repeatedly and systematically debunked by any learned empiricist or philosopher, his ideas are often, perhaps too often, viewed as the kind of bunk proliferated by 'pseudo-scientists'; other ideas including things like phrenology or other now-defunct branches of, mainly, monist belief.

As far as my research goes, this is where the logical inferences stop, because I've yet to find anything directly linked between ideas of polymorphous perversion and the formation of later sexualities. Naturally, I will thus turn to Freud's work on monosexuality, in order to extrapolate and perhaps legitimise (though probably not) that which Freud suggested. If no individuals are born "monosexual", that is 'attracted to one sex' (homo or heterosexual) and that societal or familial teaching is the only factor with which sexuality evolves; we have a sort of naturalist determinism viewpoint: that external factors, such as hereditary or environmental factors, cause the antecedent action, which in turn causes the antecedent, ad infinitum; all actions are pre-empted by actions which cause those further actions. Not to be confused with fatalism which alleges that all action is 'fate': unchangeable, intractable; pre-determined by an external force (normally theistic), and cannot be changed no matter what the individual attempts. No, if we accept Freud's monosexuality claims as natural determinism, then we reach an impasse which leads only to our dismissing of Freud's ideas; as, in most circles, determinism is a paradoxical philosophy which cannot be legitimised by its very nature (as there needs be rational cause for action, gained from non/ir-rational factors). Thus, if we want to take Freud as at all valid, we have to view his ideas as scientific; but therein lies the problem. It is a scientific explanation for that which is commonly accepted as a philosophical or natural problem. Hmm. Confussing.

Also, apologies to anyone if I have lost them, or if what I have asserted isn't how the philosophies would pan out: I am not a philosopher, and my knowledge is based solely off of my own research and interest. If I have inferred incorrectly, I apologise, but I can only work with what I have :).

Let us ignore philosophy for a moment - perish the thought - and try to find examples or anecdotal evidence for Freud's claims. If it were true that no people were indeed born monosexual, surely ideas of homosexuality within devoutly Catholic - neigh, religious - circles would be impossible. Socialisation, by its very nature, implies repetition and immersion; no fleeting moment, no epiphany, could explain the maintaining of homosexuality. Presumably the work is reversible: that if we are born somewhere not-straight, but socialised into monosexuality, how do we have such prevalence of homosexuality in a society which still is ostensibly heteronormative? How, when our gay community tends towards such exclutionism even within its own boundaries (biphobia, etc.) would we explain this? Freud's ideas is kind of... weak by any modern-day perspective. Other sexualities being the product of metasexual socialisation implies a higher level of 'other' sexualities than has ever been recorded by anyone. Silly Freud.

These ideas of repression are a jarring note, too; Freud explains further sexualities deviating from the norm as the product of infantile socialisation, and those 'monosexuals' who deviate from their boundaries as products of subconscious repression; yet ignores concepts such as asexuality,labelless individuals, and the like. Think of repression as the explanation for déjà vu: that uncanny feelings are produced by the recurrence of subconscious repetition; what, then, would the repression of these ideals form in future sexualities?

If we take all of this into account, we can truly see that Freud was a bit of a silly-billy, and that we should probably ignore him as a crazy person.

Oh well.

/End nonsensical waffling about concepts beyond his intellectual remit.

P.S. Welcome to December, merry etc..