Theories Of Sexual Normality

Sexual normality implies the innate amalgamation of one’s sexual drive, or libido, with a predetermined sexual goal, i.e., copulation. This ossified concept of normality produces a fragmentary view of sexual theory. Therefore, normality is not necessary or sufficient for sexuality; human sexuality is individual, not universal. An innate association of sexual drive with a specific sexual goal is incompatible with a comprehensive examination of human sexuality.
As mentioned above, sexual normality is ossified. In other words, sexual normality is so engrained within any particular culture that its constructs exist entirely unnoticed until attended to. For the sake of analogy, consider an item of clothing you are currently wearing, such

The purpose of this was to remove the bias of cultural normality in an attempt to reveal an accurate account of human sexuality through its constituents. Reducing this complex concept into its basic elements de-familiarizes established normality, allowing a temporally and culturally relevant theory to be constructed descriptively from the bottom up. This method prevents the acceptance of fallacies and misunderstandings of a top-down method of analysis, i.e., defining normality without cognizing abnormality. In doing so, Freud challenged the widely accepted biological innateness views of human sexuality at the

However, this is not always the case. When the sexual goal deviates from normality, it is referred to as inversion. Inversion is essentially homosexuality, although there are three subdivisions within it, which are: absolute, amphigenic, and occasional, which vary in exclusivity and emotional connection to the inverted sexual object. According to cultural norms of Freud’s era, inversion was considered innate and/or degenerate. However, Freud disagrees with this normative distinction. In degeneracy, a person’s entire being is affected; this is not the case with inversion. Second, if inversion were innate, there would not be room for variation in sexual behavior. However, as Freud discussed, there are subdivisions of inversion, each with different roles and sexual goals. For example, in classical inversion, men wish to play the role of a woman. This behavior has been observed in sexual inverts, but it is certainly not a universal