The decline of sexual radicalism in The Netherlands

 

The sexual revolution of the late sixties raised high hopes among liberal and progressive groups in The Netherlands. Being a nation governed since the early twentieth century by coali­tions that always consisted of at least some orthodox protes­tant and/or catholic parties, the country had definitively conservative politics as to carnal matters. Although the Christi­an parties succeeded to remain in positions of power until the early 1990s, their resistance against more liberal sexual politics lost its force since the 1960s when leading groups from both the catholic and the calvinist pillars began to support many tenets of the sexual revolution (Oosterhuis 1999).

            The Dutch had a remarkable situation regarding sex laws. Different from anglican England, lutheran Germany and Scandinavia, calvinist Netherlands followed the lead of France and the Enlightenment and decriminalized non-repro­ductive and non-marital sexuality in the early nineteenth century. The French had occupied the Netherlands in 1810-1813 and in that period introduced their Civil and Penal Codes. The Dutch kept the French laws after the defeat of Napole­on and followed its libe­ral spirit even when they replaced the French penal law by a new Dutch one in 1886. The French crimi­nal law only forba­de making money from pros­titu­tion and public indecency. There was no age of consent, but courts set it at 12 years under the rape law. The intro­duction of Napoleonic laws in 1811 meant a tremendous change: all kinds of behaviours that were deemed sins and crimes befo­re, were no longer punishable (Hekma 1987).

            The sexual liberties the French revolution had brought, were firmly contested by politicians of all factions, but not funda­mentally changed. Notwithstanding Dutch legal liberalism, libidinous rela­tions also remained something unspoken and highly con­trolled. Social life remained strictly hete­rosexual and male dominated. The major freedom that was allo­wed to men, was to visit pros­titutes. As in England, the legal freedom and medi­cal control of pros­titution became main tar­gets to attack sexual libera­lism in the late nineteenth centu­ry. Chris­tians, socia­lists and femi­nists united to combat what they called sin, the abuse of working-class women and male privile­ge. This struggle was successful before 1900 as many cities outla­wed bordellos. After their victories, the organi­zations that were central in the fight against prostitution, changed their aims and began to focus on topics such as the traffic in women, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, and child abuse (de Vries 1997; Koen­ders 1996).

            When the Dutch got their own criminal law in 1886, they raised the age of consent from 12 to 16 years and enlarged the realm of public indecency to include situations where people were unwil­ling witnesses. The definition of forbidden pornography only inclu­ded the sale of pictures and pamphlets, not books (Smidt 1881; Overbeek 1966). With the rise of Chris­tian par­ties in the late nineteenth century, these very much stres­sed their superior sexual mora­lity to that of the libe­rals that governed most of the nineteenth centu­ry. In 1911, the orthodox parties suc­ceeded to introduce new sex laws that limited access to con­traception, abortion, pornography, pros­titution while raising the age of consent for homosexual relations to 21 years and outlawing sexual relati­ons with subordinates. Although the laws became stricter, the freedom of private intimacies of adults, both hete­ro- and homo­sexual, was not questi­oned (Hekma 1987). Calvinist Holland did not return to the kind of laws that forbade all homosexual relations, as other protes­tant coun­tries did. It remained firmly one of the group of catho­lic coun­tries that had liberal sex laws, Austria being the excep­tion at that side (Hekma 1987).

            The legal changes of 1911 made it difficult to survive for the organizations that fought immorality while organizati­ons that took the case of sexual rights, got a chance to develop. The Neo-Malthusian League (NMB) existed since 1886 and promoted rational birth-control (Nabrink 1978; Rut­gers 1987). Together with the Dutch branch of the German Wissenschaft­lich-huma­nitäre Komi­tee (NWHK, founded in 1912, independent after the beginning of the First World War in 1914) that advocated equal rights for homosexua­li­ty, these would become the main organi­zations (Tielman 1982). But because of the pre­pon­derance of christian parties and the leve­rage of their orga­nizations in the social field, the sexual reform groups had little influence. The laws became slightly stricter in the period before the sexual revolution, and the catholic party suggested in 1951 to outlaw once more all homosexu­al relati­ons. This had already been the case during the nazi-occupation from 1940 to 1945 when the Germans intro­duced their more restrictive sex laws in Holland (Koenders 1996). Since the 1930s, castra­tion had been introdu­ced as a legal measure to combat sexual crimi­nality, but most operations happened outside the judici­al system and concerned men who were in this way cured of aber­rant desires under pressu­re of fami­lies, physi­ci­ans and cler­gymen.

            The harsher sex laws the Christian parties had introdu­ced in 1911, were most strictly applied in the 1950s (Koenders 1996). This high point of repression also saw a stron­ger criticism of sexual politics. The social undercurrent was that more and more people did in bed what churches and laws forbade. They were less inclined to be saints in public and sinners in secret. A very important stimulus for the following sexual revolution were the attitudes of both pro­testant and catholic clergymen and psychiatrists who began to adopt a humane per­spec­tive on erotic life. They condemned the strict morality of the past and asked for understanding of extra- and premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce (Oosterhuis 1992). Another expla­nation goes along the lines that the Netherlands were "gree­ner" in the 1960s. Due to a late demo­graphic transition, the many babies born after the War became adults in the 1960s and they picked up the signs of their times. Pop music, black rights and student movements, second wave feminism, an urge for democra­cy, an explosion of eroticism in the arts and the quick demise of obscenity laws all contributed to the frenzy and success of the sexual revo­lution (Schnabel 1990). I would moreover argue that the Nether­lands were in a privileged position because they already had relatively libe­ral sex laws compared to the Anglo-Saxon and German coun­tries, and were not tied down by the suffoca­ting and con­trol­ling family system of the Latin countries. The combination of a rather well developed individualism and the relative absence of oppressi­ve families surely contributed to the unique success of the sexual revolu­tion in Holland. The explo­sion of the sixties sounded louder and had more far-reaching implications in The Netherlands than in any of the surroun­ding nati­ons. The country moved from a conserva­tive rear­guard to a pro­gressive avant-garde in sexual matters. Amsterdam became a tourist destination for women who sought abortion, for straight men because of its red light district and for gay men because of its carnal pleasures. Following the lead of religious tolerance, Holland developed into a country of erotic tole­rance after 1970.

            The Dutch population changed its mind and it did so under the strong influence of a sexual reform movement that shifted from cautious to radical. The tenets of the sexual revolution have been famously formulated in 1967 by Mary Zelden­rust-Noordanus, chair­person of the Dutch Society for Sexual Reform NVSH, suc­cessor of the NMB. She endorsed in her lectu­re the following programmatic points for the year 2000: decri­minali­zation of homosexu­ality, porno­graphy, prostitu­tion and aborti­on, legali­zation of divor­ce and homosexual visibili­ty. The NWHK's suc­cessor, the Socie­ty for Integration of Homophi­les COC began to support similar goals. These orga­nizations also suggested more radical objec­tives such as the aboli­tion of marria­ge, of coupledom and gender and sexual dicho­tomy. In the language of those times, Zelden­rust-Noordanus stated "homo­sexuality does not exist", meaning there was no separate homo- or hete­rosexual iden­tity. Both organiza­tions sup­ported erotic diver­sity inclu­ding pedop­hilia, sadoma­sochism and exhibitio­nism. Hetero­sexual relations and marriage were being attacked as being oppressi­ve, especi­ally for women. Although Zeldenrust-Noord­anus had made her points as a vision for a far-away future, in fact most Dutch changed their mind and in stead of opposing the legal points she mentioned, they started to support them. The legal chan­ges the NVSH proposed, have indeed been realised in 2000 with the legalization of prosti­tu­tion, but in fact most points were already realized in the 1970s when the Dutch started to "gedogen" (tolerate) what was offi­cially forbidden, as with soft drugs.

            Some conservative commentators expected a flood of erotic expressions in public, should the tenets of the sexual revolution take hold. This flood indeed came to the popular media. But the carnal practices of the Dutch have not been touched in a major way by the sexual revolution. The pleasures the media depicted were not matched in every­day life. The Dutch keep their sex life to a limited number of partners and continue to believe in monoga­my. Love should precede lustful activity. In bed, they do not wander in most cases beyond coital sex, perhaps adding oral sex as a starter but rarely enjoying anal pleasures. The number of persons involved in prostitutional and homosexu­al contacts has gone down. With the sexualization of the media, the main sexual act the Dutch engage in is proba­bly masturba­tion (Van Zessen & Sandfort 1991; Brugman 1995). The discre­pancy that existed in the past between a strict morality and a laxer practice, has now chan­ged in a discrepancy between what the media depict and what people do in bed, between tolerant attitudes and the desires that are rarely expres­sed and remain closeted. Although there are no strong anti-sexual movements that want to taboo passionate pleasures, only a small minority of the Dutch experi­ment with the recently gained sexual possibilities.

 

The absence of sexual radicalism or a new fervour to change existing erotic limitations, can be attributed to several factors in Dutch society some of which for sure exist in other places. I would suggest the following points.

 

The first point concerns the Dutch situation specifical­ly and the progressive legal changes The Netherlands have witnes­sed. The successes since the sixties with sex reform, feminism and gay and lesbian emanci­pation make people think the Dutch reached the pinnacle of the possi­bilities of erotic culture. The legal demands being made by Mary Zelden­rust in 1967, have all been met. The same is true for the gay and lesbian movement. Dis­crimination in the fields of criminal and civil law has been abolished with an equal rights law in 1993 and the opening up of marriage for same-sex cou­ples in 2001. The sexual movements have reached their aims in terms of legal change. The Dutch have good reason to be proud of this situation. But when we look at the social situa­tion and remember demands that "homo- en heterosexu­ali­ty should not exist any more" (to rephrase Zelden­rust's ideal), that the couple and the gender dichotomy should be abolished and that erotic variation gain the same visibility as hete­rosexu­ality, these aims are far from being accomplished. The obvi­ous pro­blem is of course that it is much easier to mobili­ze acti­vists for con­crete than for abs­tract and general tar­gets that are hard to pin­point. Sexual radicalism has become very diffi­cult with the disappea­rance of concrete and practical goals. The NVSH has lost most of its members, going down from 200.000 in the late sixties to 1400 now. The COC has kept the same number of members (nowadays some 8000), but has lost most of its political cloud. Gay parades do not attract the 100.000s of other Western coun­tries, but a meagre 10.000 demonstrators. Offici­als of sexual reform organizations often say they are still needed for the orthodox christian and muslim minorities in Hol­land, and for support of their foreign colleagues. Appa­rently, the majority of white Dutch are beyond sexual change.

            It is howe­ver clear that there are still many pro­blems facing the Dutch, for example sexual sexism, a deeply eng­rained homopho­bia or the difficulty of frank speech on sex in inti­mate and public situa­tions. The most common insults on school-yards remain variati­ons of "faggot", and these are not inno­cent words. The sexual reform movements still have a long way to go, also in The Ne­therlands, but most people deny their urgency. Their aims have generally been defi­ned in terms of legal change. Now the legal situation looks satisfactory, the more difficult battle for socio-sexual change has to start off. An aggravating circumstance is the growing diversity of inte­rests. The number of issues remains overwhelming: public and kinky sex, street walking, sex educa­tion, erotic represen­tations, aborti­on, contraception, immi­gration, racism, space to meet for social and sexual occasi­ons. There is moreover a diversity of groups that feel disad­vantaged, for example under-age and older queers, prosti­tutes, lesbian mot­hers, pedop­hi­les, trans­genders to name a few. Their agen­da's can be quite diffe­rent, sometimes opposi­te. The various ethnicities have moreover different sexual cultures. Sex radicals face an overw­helming array of contra­dictory issues. The law of the "remmen­de voorsprong" (braking lead) of Dutch historian Jan Romein is at work in this field, meaning that advantages the Dutch have reached now, will most probably turn into disad­vantages for the futu­re.

 

The second point concerns the sexualization of the media. They give the false image that the Dutch are happy and free to explore their erotic desires. Perhaps not on prime time, but later at night most straight variations of sexuality will be shown. Discussions on various forms of desire are quite common place on both television and in the daily and weekly press. With the exception of sportsmen and business-leaders, the Dutch know the erotic preferences of their famous people who rarely hide their love affairs any more, the most famous case of recent times being the openly gay, murdered right wing leader Pim Fortuijn. But there is an enormous dis­tance between the free speech and free imagery of sex and love in the media and the con­crete situation in every­day lives. The openness of the media is not reflected in their au­dience. The reaction of the public is quite ambivalent. While it is at­trac­ted to sex in the media, or intrigued by the drag queens and leather men in chaps of gay parades, there is a continuous worry that the public realm has become oversexua­lized. Most Dutch believe the media should restrain the explicit­ness of sexual imagery, or only show it late at night when children have gone to bed. Erotic advertising is often criticised because it unnecessari­ly insults orthodox christian and muslim women and endangers the innocence of kids while the reverse is never brought forward, for example that it is healthy for young people to loose their innocence. Many newspapers have shown the most sexy pictures of gay para­des on the front page. These same newspapers print letters to the editor on the inner pages of enraged citizens who state that the gay boys rather should stay in their bars and clubs with their extrava­ganza, and not show it in the streets. The public remains very ambivalent about public sexuality. The media indeed give an inaccurate picture of the erotic state of the Dutch.

 

There is another problem with the image the media have crea­ted. The sexual revolution was very much an urban phenomenon, borne by a progressive minority. Its targets were not shared by a majority of the population living in suburbs or on the coun­try-side. These people did not support but neither opposed the sexual liberation at that time. Sometimes they enjoyed the grea­ter free­doms in the fields of contra­cepti­on, extra-mari­tal sex and divor­ce. But later, they often oppo­sed visible diver­sity and what they defined as the exces­ses of sexual liberati­on, for example the leather­men and drag queens of gay parades, or other forms of sexuali­zation of public space for example on billboards or televisi­on. They resisted street prostitution or gay cruising in their neigh­bourhoods, and pedophiles became their scape­goats of the nine­ties. They formed a silent majori­ty during the sixties and seven­ties and have become more vocal since the nineties. Their gro­wing discon­tent with various tenets of the six­ties' social movements received support from some of those who had defended them in the past. Former mar­xist Pim Fortuijn was such a convert who exploited the conser­vative sentiment of the subur­banized population to further his political program, although he was exceptional in continuing to defend the sexual liberties that the Dutch gained.

 

The fourth point concerns sexual ideology. I have tried elsewhere to explain why the Dutch have been so slow to enjoy the carnal freedoms the six­ties promised (Hekma fc). My main point was that the erotic ideo­logy had not fundamental­ly changed. Sexuality remai­ned a natural, male, private affair while the combination of love and sexuality only became stron­ger. This ideology was largely put in place during the En­lightenment when the natural scien­ces began to be seen as the main provi­ders of sexual knowled­ge, the gender dicho­to­my was put in place and eroticism became a private affair. With the decline of contractual marriages in the nineteenth and twen­tieth century, love developed into the main foun­dation of marriage and sex. This ideology survi­ved the sexual revo­lution with few changes and little opposition. Only the idea that sex is dangerous was replaced by another that it is non-violent, nicely ex­pressed in the slogan "make love, not war". With the demise of other kinds of legal and social controls, such beliefs became the main guides for sexual life. The lack of socio-erotic equality between men and women and the refusal to create a public sexual culture where love and sex can be mixed in various ways, have led to a stagna­tion in libidinous prac­tices. The re­striction of sex to the working of hormones in private be­drooms does not promise much erotic variety and neither a rich love life. At the same time, we have to realize that there is an undercurrent of Dutch feelings about sex, a legacy of a faraway past, the idea that sex is dangerous and vici­ous. The romantic idea of the "innocence" of chil­dren is so much vene­rated because it stands in strong opposi­tion to the supposed filthiness and wickedness of sex. As this innocen­ce is the reverse of carnal knowledge, it is misplaced in modern times. Children need sex education in a sexualized society. The hope that love should turn out to be non-violent, did not withstand a reality of sexual violence that continued to be a side-effect of pleasure in both repressive and tole­rant times.

            There is a lot to say about the consequences of the continuation of this ideology in a society that is always more sexualized. Media in modern societies depict erotic freedoms that only very few people are able to act upon. This divergen­ce must lead to major misunderstandings and many frustrations, mental problems and social conflicts. As long as women conti­nue to say no to sex without love, and men have few ideas how to seduce others, the weak answer will be a retreat to monoga­my while the strong responses move into terrains of sexual vio­lence. The carnal freedom and autonomy promised by the sixties are jeopardised by this ideology: it does not offer public space for erotic cultures, it makes love mise­rable and lust unattainable, it creates opposite expec­tati­ons of straight relations in men and women, it proposes no viable knowledge of pleasure, that produces few oppor­tunities to discuss sexuality in frank and open ways and it leaves sex education in an abyssal state. It creates unea­siness in the Dutch about erotic expressions, even in an academicfield like gay studies. It is an ideology that severely restrains demo­cracy as it does not acknowledge the sexual side of citizens­hip. Eroticism is of course a public affair, but the public realm itself likes to restrict it to the natural and the private.

 

In our always more sexualized societies, the answers to expli­cit and public sexuality show a tendency to go in the opposite direction and to become more re­strictive. The openings that exist and are being used, are closed off more often. There has been in recent years a general concern in the Nether­lands about sex in the media and erotic advertising on the streets. The left-wing Socialist Party complained about the "verloede­ring" (filthifi­cation) of ci­ties, and they clear­ly targeted sex venues. The city of Am­sterdam cuts down on street wal­king (the famous "tippelzone"), erotic shows in bars and disco's, and sexy postcards on its avenues. Suggesti­ons have been voiced to close down the Red Light District after mid­night because of drunken and noisy British tourists who are conside­red a nui­sance. Other places want to get rid of gay cruising area's that straight people start to use. With a rare unanimous vote, parliament raised in 2002 the age of consent from 12 to 16 while chil­dren become erotic beings at always earlier ages and are often quite happy to loose their innocen­ce even before. Dutch socie­ty is not opposed to sexual expres­si­ons, but does very little to enhance them, or to move on from a mono­sexual, that is hetero­sexual, culture to one that is multi­sexual or polya­morous, or open to diversity in passio­nate and loving relations.

 

A feeling among the Dutch that their sexual politics are fine, that the explicit sex on television is repre­sentative of their freedoms while they continue to hang on to a traditional erotic ideo­logy, these backgrounds explain why sexual reform movement and queer activism attract little attention. Instead of leading the way to an even better and richer future, Dutch sexual culture stagnates, even faces some setbacks. Tension is growing be­tween people who act upon their desires and others who want to curb such expressions. During the sixties, the Dutch moved from the rearguard to the avantgarde in sexual politics. They might now turn back unless some major changes happen. But, as always, it is utterly impossible to foresee the future. The explanations for the deradicalization of the Dutch that I have suggested, may however point to sexual politics that can help to create a multisexual and polyamo­rous world where individuals can make autonomous deci­sions about their erotic life. The Dutch took 150 years to act upon the liberalism of their sex laws of 1811, it is to be hoped that they need less time to profit of the legal changes of the last 30 years.

 

 

Bibliography:

 

            Brugman, Emily e.a. (1995) Jeugd en seks 95. Resultaten van het nationale scho­lierenonder­zoek. Utrecht: SWP.

            Hekma, Gert (1987) Homoseksualiteit, een medische reputa­tie. De uitdok­tering van de homoseksueel in negentiende-eeuws Neder­land. Amsterdam: SUA.

            - (fc) How libertarian is the Netherlands? Exploring Con­tempo­ra­ry Dutch Cultures. Earlier version on: www.pscw.uva.nl/gl

            Koenders, Pieter (1996) Tussen Christelijk Réveil en seksuele revolutie. Bestrijding van zedeloosheid met de nadruk op re­pressie van homoseksualiteit. Amsterdam: IISG.

            Nabrink, Gé (1978) Seksuele hervorming in Nederland. Achter­gronden en geschiedenis vam de Nieuw-Mal­thusiaanse Bond (NMB) en de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Sekusuele Hervor­ming (NVSH), 1881-1971. Nijmegen: SUN.

            Oosterhuis, Harry (1992) Homoseksualiteit in katholiek Neder­land. Een sociale geschiedenis 1900-1970. Amsterdam: SUA.

            - (1999) The Netherlands: neither prudish nor hedonis­tic", in: Franz X. Eder, Lesley A. Hall and Gert Hekma (eds), Sexual Cultures in Europe, Vol. 2: National Histo­ries, Man­chester: Manchester UP, pp. 71-90.

            Overbeek, W.H. (1966) Pornografie voor het Gerecht. Den Haag: NVSH.

            Röling, Hugo Q. (1987) 'De tragedie van het geslachtsle­ven': Jo­han Rutgers (1850-1924) en de Nieuw-Malthusiaanse Bond. Amster­dam: Van Gennep.

            Schnabel, Paul (1990) Het verlies van de seksuele on­schuld. In: Gert Hekma e.a. (eds), Het verlies van de onschuld. Seks in Ne­der­­land. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff, pp. 11-50.

            Smidt, H.J. (1881) Geschiedenis van het Wetboek van Straf­recht, dl 2, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink.

            Tielman, Rob A.P. (1982) Homoseksualiteit in Nederland. Studie van een eman­cipatiebeweging. Meppel: Boom.

            Vries, Petra de (1997) Kuisheid voor mannen, vrijheid voor vrou­wen. De reglementering en bestrijding van prostitutie in Nederland, 1850-1911. Hilversum: Verloren.

            Zeldenrust-Noordanus, Mary (1967) Slotrede. N.p., n.p. (probably Den Haag: NVSH)

            Zessen, Gertjan van, en Theo Sandfort (eds) (1991) Seksu­ali­teit in Nederland. Seksueel gedrag, risico en preventie van Aids. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.