Castration anxiety without father-fearing
Any suppression of sexuality normally produces sexual anxiety. A domineering or abusing father, sexually restrictive moral and upbringing, are all capable of producing sexual neuroses in sensitive children. It is possible that in some fearful children the normally restrictive father figure turns out to be frustrating enough to produce the symptoms of castration anxiety. Severe sexual restriction and repression imposed on children with normal sensitivity habitually trigger sexual neuroses. Severe asexual frustrations can also destabilize the sexual sphere and result in sexual anxieties. Physical restraint of sexuality including reduction of erogenous sensitivity inevitably causes sexual frustration. In all of these cases the frustrations are adequate responds to the conditions. The neuroses that adequate frustrations may instigate have nothing to do with the Oedipus conflict. In the dogmatic frame of Freudian psychology, however, all sexual anxieties can only be associated with children’s excessive libido and irrational fears and attributed to castration complex.
Both physical suppression and psychological repression of sexuality cause sexual frustrations. Anti-sex moral, over-dominating parents, circumcision or great asexual distress can cause sexual frustration and produce the symptoms of castration anxiety. The anxieties induced in these ways, however, are rather normal adaptive reactions to external reality than the result of acute intrinsic irrational disposition to fear emasculation.
An explanation of the anxieties induced by an obvious external cause does not necessitate castration complex. Anxieties induced by unknown causes can be explained with inborn sensitivity of the sufferer. Assuming that children have undue sexuality and are infested with irrational tribal fear of emasculation is unnecessary. And this is irrespective of whether the father has been a sexually restrictive figure or not. It seems that nothing besides the desire of psychoanalysers can justify the status of castration complex as a unique basic category in psychiatry.
The symptoms of castration anxiety do not ascertain the reality of the castration complex. They do not prove that sufferers have lusted for their mothers or have feared their fathers during their early childhood. The symptoms of castration anxiety may indicate a number of conditions. They may suggest that either the sufferer is born too sensitive or has been subjected to sexual frustration be it of psychological or physical type or have experienced severe asexual inhibitions. In other words, the naturally sensitive people, those who have been overmoralized, circumcised or suffered great distress need not be sexual maniacs and father-haters. The moral certainty of psychoanalysis is the only proof that substantiates the Oedipus conflict.
Castration anxiety without mother-lusting
Any frustration tends to affect sexuality because sexuality is a primal and important function that is inseparable from other activities. Emotions are deeply interconnected. The sexual sphere is the least autonomous one. General frustrations easily invade it and easily induce sexual anxieties. Any frustration has a pretty good chance to trigger a sexual neurosis. Asexual frustrations can also cause sexual anxieties. Similarly, not only the absence of food causes hunger.
Most of the anxieties normally affect sexuality and appear as sexual neuroses. Castration anxiety may have completely asexual origin. Neuroses are easiest to detect in the sexual sphere. This tempts that all neuroses be classified as sexual and their origin attributed to some intrinsic and self-made sexual frustration such as castration anxiety. And the temptation to sexualize neuroses is even greater for psychologists whose sexuality was supressed during their infancy.
Classifying neuroses of an asexual organ as sexual is not simply an innocent taxonomy. As long as psychology is taken seriously it has wide social effects. The mistaken origin of sexual anxieties burdens sexuality with undue guilt, misleads criminology, supports sexually repressive moral and conservatism, and obstructs the understanding and cultivation of sexuality. It also conceals the mental effects of circumcision and all of its consequences such as artificially induced religiousness, clannishness, ethnic and religious intolerance and ethnic bias in science.
Induction of the neuroses that Freudian psychology labels as castration anxieties require neither the child’s fear of castration nor sexual desire for the mother. Indications of Oedipus conflict may occur without any interference of mothers and fathers. But Freudian psychology cannot recognize the alternative causes of the sexual anxieties because it has dogmatically overruled them. Psychoanalytic theory tends to divert the attention away from real frustration agents and to defend the prevailing sexually repressive moral, circumcision and other social factors of distress.