Sexual frigidity: the social construction of masculine privilege and feminine pathology

This study examines how mid-twentieth century physicians used the term ‘sexual frigidity’ to disempower women. Conceptualizing medical texts as accounts, I focus on how medical authors saw, described and explained sexual frigidity from the 1930s to the 1960s in both scientific writings and in those aimed at the general public as sex guides, marriage manuals and advice columns. The study concludes, that behind the pretext of treating a woman’s frigidity, psychiatrists and gynecologists, using the language and theoretical structures of psychoanalysis, constructed a narrative in which ‘normal’, non-frigid women always see their man through a lens of unlimited patience, tenderness and altruism. Their attitude is always welcoming, joyous, and worshipful. By contrast, women defined as sexually frigid see their man through a lens of bitterness and resentment, an attitude which reaches its apotheosis during the man’s attempts to engage them in intercourse. Through the frigidity narrative, mid-twentieth century physicians managed to pass judgment, not only on women’s sexuality, but on their autonomy, their character, and the success or failure of their marriage: they are to blame when their husband leaves them for another woman; they are to blame when their husband is impotent; and they only have themselves to blame if they are unable to function in a sexually ‘healthy’ way. The discourse that seemed preoccupied with a woman’s genitals, with their feelings and contractions, was also interested in a woman’s heart, her intentions and activities, with particular emphasis on how she performed as her husband’s housekeeper and companion. There was scarcely an attitude, feeling, or interpersonal activity known to women from which mid-twentieth century physicians did not impute some connection to frigidity.