It is possible to argue that human sexuality is a complex concept, which is an integrated interaction of biological, psychological and sociocultural factors. Human sexuality can be regarded an innate need and a function of the human body, similar to the processes of respiration, digestion, etc. Consequently, sexual repression is fraught with numerous negative psychological and social consequences.
To support the aforestated argument, it is necessary to mention the very definition of human sexuality, which is commonly regarded as a combination of biological, psycho-physiological, mental and emotional reactions, human feelings and actions related to the manifestation and satisfaction of a sexual desire (Yarber, Sayad, & Strong, 2009). Thus, most scientists tend to think that an individual is born with certain physiological sexual potential, so sexuality is formed under the individual life experiences. Even a superficial analysis of human biology shows that sexuality plays a huge role human life, and this role cannot be reduced to simple ensuring procreation. Otherwise, it would be possible to assume that after having created a human, Mother Nature admitted unpardonable extravagance, when endowed people with the characteristics, abilities, and qualities that are many times greater than it is required for simple reproduction. Although imprinting and other forms of individual perception of reality are central to the process of formation of sexuality, it is also influenced by different targeting social programs, which can both suppress all “non-standard” forms of its manifestation and contribute to the formation of its “standard” forms based on scientific sex education (Yarber, Sayad, & Strong, 2009). Consequently, it is necessary to consider that, according to most scientific researches, suppression of sexual response often involves the transition of sexual tension to other emotional forms, including those related to aggression (Malinowski, 2001). Thus, according to Sigmund Freud, repression of sexual drives, forcing them into the unconscious, leads to neurosis, the emergence of distortions of sexuality (Malinowski, 2001).
To avoid biased attitude and subjectivity, it is expedient to highlight the opposite viewpoint on sexuality, according to which, it is perceived as a shameful phenomenon worthy of condemnation and repression. It is a well-known fact that repressive culture, seeking to almost complete suppression of sexuality, strictly prohibits extramarital and premarital sex. Nonetheless, in pursuit of moral purity of society, these cultures completely neglect sex education and reduce the role of sex in marriage to procreation (McClintock, 2006). Moreover, it is necessary to note that such cultures inhibit the development of personality traits related to sexuality, including romantic love (McClintock, 2006). There is no need to emphasize the absurdity and hypocrisy of this philosophy is evident.
It is also expedient to resort to historical analysis to trace the roots of suppression of human sexuality.
Most experts note that historical repression of sexuality is directly linked to the emergence of private property and the advent of widespread dominance of economic interests (Foucault, 1998). Thus, during the period of transition from matriarchy to patriarchy, not only the economic but also sexual relationships were subjected to transformation, which can be explained …