. How Does Phallocentrism Influence Understandings of Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction?
anihcworld@hotmail.com
Since there have been dramatic improvement of biotechnology and biomedical inventions in modern history, the medical technological treatment in relation to the issues of sexuality, sexual function, and sexual health have been also developed by various clinical and scientific organisation (Lau, Kim, & Tsui, 2005). According to Wood, Koch, and Mansfield (2006), although the sexual issues have been considered as fundamental, innate, and universal phenomenon for both females and males in biomedical paradigm, the phallocentric cultural frame have influenced the different understanding of the concept of sexuality based on men’s sexuality. Since there has been longer history of research on men’s sexual response and behaviour as the norm of human sexuality, it has been often argued that the current society perceives the understanding of the sexual issues by heavily focusing on men’s sexuality (Irvin, 1990). In this essay, it will be discussed how the sexual dysfunctioning can be perceived differently based on the culturally embedded gender basis. The essay will start from the exploration of the traditional, fundamental, and socio-cultural understanding of human bodies, to the consideration of the phallocentric perception of current biomedical interventions to treat sexual dysfunctioning.
In traditional western culture, there have been different culturally embodied narratives to understand individuals’ bodies, based on the biological differences of different sexes (Potts, 2000). However, although the anatomical differences of reproductive systems initiated the differentiation of human bodies into either male or female, it is actually the phallocentric cultural constructions that create further distinctions by embedding the culturally sexualised conceptualisations to the body (Bray, 2001). According to Grosz (1994), the major body component that critically distinguishes the differences between the sexes into two mutually exclusive categories is
Since there have been dramatic improvement of biotechnology and biomedical inventions in modern history, the medical technological treatment in relation to the issues of sexuality, sexual function, and sexual health have been also developed by various clinical and scientific organisation (Lau, Kim, & Tsui, 2005). According to Wood, Koch, and Mansfield (2006), although the sexual issues have been considered as fundamental, innate, and universal phenomenon for both females and males in biomedical paradigm, the phallocentric cultural frame have influenced the different understanding of the concept of sexuality based on men’s sexuality. Since there has been longer history of research on men’s sexual response and behaviour as the norm of human sexuality, it has been often argued that the current society perceives the understanding of the sexual issues by heavily focusing on men’s sexuality (Irvin, 1990). In this essay, it will be discussed how the sexual dysfunctioning can be perceived differently based on the culturally embedded gender basis. The essay will start from the exploration of the traditional, fundamental, and socio-cultural understanding of human bodies, to the consideration of the phallocentric perception of current biomedical interventions to treat sexual dysfunctioning.
In traditional western culture, there have been different culturally embodied narratives to understand individuals’ bodies, based on the biological differences of different sexes (Potts, 2000). However, although the anatomical differences of reproductive systems initiated the differentiation of human bodies into either male or female, it is actually the phallocentric cultural constructions that create further distinctions by embedding the culturally sexualised conceptualisations to the body (Bray, 2001). According to Grosz (1994), the major body component that critically distinguishes the differences between the sexes into two mutually exclusive categories is
References: Boyle, M. (1993). Sexual dysfunction or heterosexual dysfunction?. Feminism & Psychology, 3 (1), 73-88. Bray, A. (2001). Not woman enough: Irigaray’s culture of difference. Feminist Theory, 2 (3), 311-327. Chew, K. K., Earle, C. M., Stuckey, B. G., Jamrozik, K., & Keogh, E. J. (2000). Erectile dysfunction in general medicine practice: prevalence and clinical Fishman, J, R., & Mamo, L. (2002). What’s in a Disorder: A Cultural Analysis of Medical and Pharmaceutical Constructions of Male and Female Sexual Grosz, E. (1990). Jacques Lacan: A feminist introduction. London: Routledge. Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Irvine, J. (1990). Disorders of desire: Sex and gender in modern American sexology. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Ecrits: A selection. London: Routledge. Lau, J. T., Kim, J. H., & Tsui, H. Y. (2005). Prevalence of male and female sexual problems, perceptions related to sex and association with quality of life in a Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Rosen, R.C. (1999). Sexual Dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and Predictors Nelkin, D. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and psychology. New York: W Nicolson, P. (1993). Deconstructing sexology: The pathologisation of female sexuality Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is ‘normal’ about women’s (hetero) sexual desire and orgasm?: A report of an in-depth interview study Medicine, 57, 1735-1745. Oliffe, J. (2006). Embodied masculinity and androgen deprivation therapy. School of Health & Illness, 28 (4), 410-432 Potts, A. (2000). “The Essence of the Hard On”: Hegemonic Masculinity and the Cultural Construction of “Erectile Dysfunction” Tiefer, L. (1994). The Medicalization of Impotence: Normalizing Phallocentrism. Gender & Society, 8 (3), 363-377. Tiefer, L. (2000). Sexology and the pharmaceutical industry: The threat of co-optation. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 273-283. Wood, J. M., Koch, P. B., & Mansfield, P. K. (2006). Women’s Sexual Desire: A Feminist Critique