LHMP #489 Freedman 1982 Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century America

This article mostly concerns attitudes toward m/f sex, so my summary is going to focus fairly narrowly on the high-level basic premise and the specifically f/f parts.

Freedman examines three parallel but separate topics in sexual history: ideology (prescriptive opinions), behavior (evidence for what people were actually doing), and “politics” (by which she means activities intended to change sexual practice or attitudes, as distinct from simple statements about what was considered correct behavior). These three topics interact, but historians have often assigned causation between them in ways not supported by the evidence. For example, looking at declining fertility rates in certain populations and ascribing it to conduct literature that prescribes control of sexuality, rather than looking for changes in sexual practice that avoided pregnancy. Another example involves conduct literature that asserted 19th century women’s disinterest in sex, while ignoring both rational reasons women might be less than enthusiastic (such as fear of pregnancy and lack of sexual satisfaction) and evidence from surveys that contradicted the claim that women had low sexual desire.

A decline in fertility in the later 19th century was paralleled by an increase in public concerns about female masturbation and lesbianism. (Male anti-masturbation literature had become prevalent a century previous.) There was a rising suspicion toward girls’ same-sex crushes at school, while a survey (taken in the 1920s among adult women about their younger experiences) reported that of women born after 1850, a majority had masturbated to orgasm and 20% of college-educated women had been involved in lesbian relationships. Did an increase in non-procreative sex cause a decline in birthrates that then created anxiety about the causes? Or did the decline in birthrate leave authorities casting about for a correctable cause, who then pointed the finger at pre-existing that had made no difference?

Women’s intimate same-sex relationships had long been considered acceptable and not considered “lesbian” (regardless of whether individual relationships had an erotic component) until sexologists began pathologizing them. [Note: I’m grateful to Freedman for challenging Faderman’s assumption that 19th century women were incapable of experiencing sexual desire and that therefore Boston Marriages were never erotic.]

Although the preceding discussion is included in the introductory part of the article, the remainder is entirely focused on m/f sex.