33Rd Annual Meeting*: On “The Role of Sexuality in Female Psychology”*

The presentations of this workshop, while characterized by a lively informality, were of such richness and detail as to constitute a panel presentation. Alexandra Symonds began with the question, “To what extent does anatomy define identity?” She stated that Freud emphasized the centrality of penis envy and felt there was no female identity per se. She contrasted this with Karen Horney's perspective, who in 1922, controversially stressed the concept of culture, and defined primary penis envy, which disappears if the relationship of daughter and father is positive and warm. Secondary penis envy results if this relationship is negative. Freud would not accept this. Horney saw passive and active strivings in both men and women.

Malkah Notman then spoke on “Some Observations on Body Image and Female Psychology.” She emphasized the role of the body, its anatomy and functioning, in development and personal outlook and observed that it is difficult to delineate nature and nurture. Sexual motives are different in men and women, men defining power and denying dependency, women seeking intimacy. Gender identity for women is less dependent on sexual expression than it is for men. Women also have less vulnerability to gender identity disorders, because of the closeness of early mother–daughter involvement, with their sharing of body ego and function. “The girl's developmental tasks have nothing to do with penis envy, but center on differentiating from primary love object, the mother.”

Women emphasize ground, men figure: “What stays with you most, versus what stands out for you most.” Notman criticized pervasive analytic references to women's bodies being viewed negatively as problematic with obvious resonance with lowered self-esteem. She noted that analytic literature emphasizes the penis, and almost ignores the breasts and suckling as a central human experience.

Maria Lymberis presented a case, entitled “Female Sexual Dysfunction Revisited.”