Sex Variant Women in Literature: A Historical and Quantitative Survey

This study is concerned with certain types of emotional reaction among women as these appear in literature. Its primary aim is neither psychiatric nor critical; that is, it does not pretend to solve the problems described nor to pass conventional judgment on the literature examined, though rudiments of aesthetic and psychological evaluation will inevitably be included. Its purpose is to trace historically the quantity and temper of imaginative writing on its chosen subject from earliest times to the present day, on the assumption that what has been written and read for pleasure is a fair index of popular interest and social attitude from one century to another.
Since new viewpoints and methods of study are constantly altering our sex vocabulary, some preliminary definitions seem advisable. First, what is meant by sex variant? The term was selected because it is not as yet rigidly defined nor charged with controversial overtones. Intrinsically, variant means no more than differing from a chosen standard, and in the field of sex experience the standard generally accepted is adequate heterosexual adjustment. But even this phrase lacks precision. Lawyer, clergyman, physician, psychoanalyst, biologist, sociologist, each will interpret it from his particular viewpoint. The meaning a layman meets oftenest in the literature of our western Christian culture is happy marriage and parenthood, but this is nearer to the churchman’s and sociologist’s ideal than to the working compromise by which average citizens worry along. Perhaps the highest practical common denominator is a heterosexual union agreeable to both its parties and not detrimental to them, to the society in which they live, or to the continuance of the race.
Possible deviations from this standard are many, but the present study will stay within the limits set by a work of 1941 entitled Sex Variants, which was devoted to persons having emotional experience with others of their own sex. Under this head the author included homosexuals, a term which he confined to those having only such experience; bisexuals, capable of enjoying relations with both sexes; and narcissists, attracted to both but able to achieve satisfaction with neither. The author of this work, Dr. G. W. Henry, was, as his terminology indicates, a psychiatrist. His case histories provided very complete personal data, his volumes dealt with both men and women, and he included only those who had engaged in overt sexual activity. By contrast, the present study is not strictly oriented to any professional school of thought. It is limited to relations between women, and “relations” is substituted for “experience” by intent. Because of the comparative sex reticence prevailing in our culture, few details of sexual action are reported in nonscientific writing, and in the peculiarly discredited field of sex variance authors often avoid even implying action. For this reason scientists tend to disparage studies based on literature, but where women are concerned a lack of specific detail is not too serious. Current scientific work, notably that of Dr. A. C. Kinsey, has established the fact that women as a whole engage in much less sex activity than men. But in spite of, or perhaps because of, this relative infrequency of “outlet,” passionate emotion more often plays a dominant role in their lives.
Not all women recognize a sexual factor in their subjective emotional relations, particularly in the intrasexual field so heavily shadowed by social disapproval. Still they often exhibit indirect responses which have all the intensity of physical passion and which quite as basically affect the pattern of their lives. Hence this study includes not only women who are conscious of passion for their own sex, with or without overt expression, but also those who are merely obsessively attached to other women over a longer period or at a more mature age than is commonly expected. If “commonly expected” is another nebulous phrase, a species of pooled judgment is available to clarify it. During the past few decades—that is, since Freudian concepts have become a part of the common background—most works on sex guidance have taken some account of homosexuality. These agree in general that passionate attachments during puberty and early adolescence may lie within the norm, but if occurring later they constitute variance. Without here debating the absolute validity of this opinion, one may borrow it as a working criterion.
As to women who habitually wear men’s clothing or even for a part of their lives pass for men, such transvestism is not in itself variant. To be sure, many psychoanalysts consider it indicative of latent homosexuality, but to bring a woman properly within the scope of this study her transvestism must be accompanied by some evidence of fondness for her own sex. And, of course, mere sex disguise arising from pressure of circumstance, a favorite device for plot-complication from ballads to modern films, has no significance here.
With the meaning of variance clarified, the more familiar terms homosexual and lesbian need attention. In popular usage the latter implies overt sexual expression and so it will be used only where such implication is intended. Homosexual is more ambiguous. Still in good scientific standing, it ordinarily has not Dr. Henry’s restricted meaning, but is more nearly synonymous with his variant. For this reason and also because as a noun it is most often applied to men, it will be employed here only when needed to relieve verbal monotony.
To conclude the business of definition, the word literature has, of course, two common meanings: belles-lettres, and factual material relative to a given subject. Here it is used in the former, or, more accurately, not in the latter sense; that is, the impressive bulk of scientific writing on sex variance will receive only cursory attention, to provide background for the matter of primary interest. This latter comprises mainly fiction, drama and poetry, and might best be termed simply imaginative writing, since many works to be discussed can boast but little belletristic worth. Even such inferior items, however, are important in reflecting attitudes and providing quantitative evidence of interest.
Only a few excursions into the field of biography and memoirs will be undertaken. Though such works are frequently classed as belles-lettres, they suffer from too many limitations to provide a profitable hunting ground. Those claiming factual accuracy are seldom frank enough about sexual matters to be useful, a condition which applies to virtually all reputable efforts since the development of scholarly historical method in the early nineteenth century. As to items written largely for sensational appeal, months of research would be required in each separate case to winnow the sparse truth from chaff which might prove explosive if offered as seriously related to fact. Biographies will be examined, then, only if their subjects produced ambiguous or enigmatic literary works possible of clarification by reference to their lives; or if they were the subject of fictional works which represented them as variants; or even (very rarely) if persistent rumor or circumstantial evidence strongly suggests variance. Most of these will be treated in a separate section specifically labeled conjectural.