In this examination of Freud’s Dora, I show that Freud insisted that Dora’s comments and gestures reflected her underlying sexual motivations, despite her repeated denials and objections. The main point is that, just as Freud “ruled in” certain ways of talking, defining Dora’s sexual fantasies and dreams as acceptable and valid representations of her feelings, so also, Freud “ruled out” other kinds of talking, in particular, Dora’s accounts of nonsexual motivation. In treating those accounts as false and meaningless, as so much cover for her “true” sexual feelings, Freud not only imposed his vision of sexuality onto a patient, he showed an entire historical period how to read sexuality into everything people say and do.
BogaertA. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 279-287.
2.
CarriganM. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference and commonality within the asexual community. Sexualities, 14, 462-478.
3.
ChasinC. D. (2011). Theoretical issues in the study of asexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 713-723.
4.
ChasinC. D. (2013). Reconsidering asexuality and its radical potential. Feminist Studies, 39, 405-426.
5.
ColeW. G. (1955). Sex in Christianity and psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
EmensE. F. (2013). Compulsory sexuality (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2218783). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
7.
FoucaultM. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London, England: Tavistock.
8.
FoucaultM. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Random House.
9.
FreudS. (1963). Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria. In RieffP. (Ed.), Dora: An analysis of a case of hysteria (pp. 21-144). New York, NY: Collier Books. (Original work published in 1905)
10.
FreudS. (1989). Recommendations to physicians practicing psycho-analysis. In GayP. (Ed.), The Freud reader (pp. 356-363). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. (Original work published in 1912)
11.
GayP. (1988). Freud: A life for our time. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
12.
GuptaK. (2015). Compulsory sexuality: Evaluating an emerging concept. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41, 131-154.
13.
JungC. (1963). Memories, dreams, reflections. London, England: Random House.
14.
KahaneC. (1985). Why Dora now? (Introduction, Part 2.). In BernheimerC.KahaneC. (Eds.), In Dora’s case: Freud—hysteria—feminism (pp. 19-32). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
15.
KatzJ. N. (1995). The invention of heterosexuality. New York, NY: Dutton.
16.
KazinA. (1957). The Freudian revolution analyzed. In NelsonB. (Ed.), Freud and the 20th century (pp. 13-21). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
17.
MacmillanM. (1991). Freud evaluated: The completed arc. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
18.
MahoneyP. (1996). Freud’s Dora: A psychoanalytic, historical, and textual study. New Haven: Yale University Press.
19.
MahoneyP. (2005). Freud’s unadorned and unadorable: A case history terminable and interminable. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 25, 27-44.
20.
MalcolmJ. (1982). Psychoanalysis: The impossible profession. London, England: Karnac.
21.
MarcusS. (1985). Freud and Dora: Story, history, case history. In BernheimerC.KahaneC. (Eds.), In Dora’s case: Freud—Hysteria—Feminism (pp. 56-91). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
22.
MoiT. (1985). Representation of patriarchy: Sexuality and epistemology in Freud’s Dora. In BernheimerC.KahaneC. (Eds.), In Dora’s case: Freud—Hysteria—Feminism (pp. 181-199). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
23.
OrnsteinP. (1993). Did Freud understand Dora? In MagidB. (Ed.), Freud’s case histories: Self-psychological perspectives (pp. 31-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
24.
SachsD. M. (2005). Reflections on Freud’s Dora case 48 years after. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 25, 45-53.
