Impotence isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.
August 18th, 2008The problem with writing articles is that it forces you to take a small piece of something complicated and say a little about it. This is a fascinating historical survey of cultural attitudes towards impotence through the ages. It starts with the Greeks and Romans and slowly works its way up to modern times. To some extent, it retreads the same ground as the History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault (in three volumes) but without the same depth of philosophical postmodernism to inform it. Some readers may prefer McLaren because he is more descriptive than analytical.
The difficulty for men can be stated simply. Rather than being judged by their ability to write a book, men are conditioned to judge themselves by their ability to have penetrative sex. If this fails, men are told that there is some shameful defect in their masculinity. Most respond by casting around to find someone else to blame. The conventional response is that women have failed to excite them. So, for example, the mythology of witches in Europe and the early American settlements was based, in part, on the proposition that spells can rob men of their virility.
This simplistic view of gender, distinguishing purely between the functioning male and female, ignores all the shades of sexuality that may manifest in bisexuality, homosexuality, transgender behaviour, etc. By defining maleness by a single criterion of physical performance, it marginalises all the other factors of affection, love and commitment which may affect sexual desire. Worse, it overlooks all the treatable physical conditions that may cause impotence.
As McLaren takes us through history, we see every excuse for failure come into and pass out of fashion. More distressingly, we are told of all the treatments sold by the medical profession over the centuries, many of which are extraordinary by modern standards. Now instead of all the guesswork of the past, we are offered the “truth”. This is ed - a plumbing problem that can be solved by taking cialis. Look around and you will see the hard sell of adverts (pun intended) for these pills. Yet, the implication of these adverts is no more true than Freudian notions that performance weakens when childhood memories interfere with adult lives. Although cialis does effectively restore erectile function, it is a “magic” fig leaf to cover the lack of understanding about the real causes of the problem.
More realistically, McLaren argues that impotence is not really a medical disorder to be treated. It is more a collection of concepts and ideas that have been used to define gender roles and expectations. If we take the word “orgasm” and try to explain what it means, we are immediately lost in a world of subjective impressions. It is always easy to fall back on physical explanations of the mechanics of arousal and consummation. But actually listing the main sensations and emotions in a way that captures their universal significance is a serious challenge. Then trying to place the definition in a context of social relationships, some acceptable, others less so, turns the entire exercise into a minefield of taboo issues.
The book is a highly informative study of social attitudes through the ages. Having read it, it would not be unfair to conclude that our attitudes today are little different to those that defined men in Ancient Rome and Greece. The only difference, I suppose, is that rather than having to eat something disgusting or soak your penis in something potentially dangerous, we can now simply take cialis while reading the last few pages of the book and then be ready to enjoy sexual activity for the rest of the night without having to work about philosophical niceties.