We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2021
In this article, I discuss the emancipation of masturbation in twentieth-century Hungary, focusing on the socialist, Kádár era (late 1950s to late 1980s), which I claim was the time when the discourses concerning masturbation underwent profound transformation. I use Thomas Laqueur's periodization of discourses on masturbation in the West and make the case that in Hungary, due to its twentieth-century political and intellectual history, which affected both the institutionalization of sexology and discourses on sexuality, there is a markedly different chronology. In Hungary, interwar socialists were the first to suggest a new approach toward masturbation but these ideas remained marginal during the Horthy regime and in the ‘Stalinist’ 1950s. In the early years of the Kádár regime, debates about sexual morality reformulated what should be understood under socialist sexual morality. The concept of socialist humanism, especially Imre Hirschler's work, linked early 1960s sex education with the interwar socialist discourse on sex and paved the way to the emancipation of masturbation and the establishment of a post-Stalinist, socialist sexual ethics. In the 1970s and 1980s, iconic sexologists like Vilmos Szilágyi and Béla Buda moved away from socialist humanism and continued Hirschler's work, but mirroring the perspectives of contemporary Western science.
This work was supported by the research grant of the Czech Science Foundation ‘Intimate life during state socialism in comparative perspective’ (grant agreement 16-10639Y, Kateřina Lišková). This article has benefited from comments by Kateřina Lišková, Natalia Jarska, and Ágnes Kelemen.
1 Endre Illés's book review of Béla Totis's Az ifjúság nemi problémái, in Nyugat, 1932/4.
2 István Haraszti's reply to Imre Hirschler's article in Pedagógia Szemle, 1964.
3 Michel Foucault's Abnormal also provides a periodization of masturbation, focusing mostly on the biopolitical reasons for expert and state involvement in children's sexuality. Foucault's arguments are important for understanding the origins of the medicalization of masturbation and the state's interest in the bodies of children. For the purposes of this article, however, Laqueur's work is more directly relevant. Foucault, Michel, Abnormal: lectures at the Collège de France, 1974–1975 (New York, NY, 2003), pp. 231–62Google Scholar.
4 Laqueur, Thomas, Solitary sex: a cultural history of masturbation (New York, NY, 2003)Google Scholar.
5 Ibid., pp. 70–4 and 381–97.
6 Ibid., p. 74.
7 Ibid., pp. 74–82 and 397–404.
8 Herzog, Dagmar, Sexuality in Europe: a twentieth century history (Cambridge, 2012), p. 153Google Scholar.
9 Rydström, Jens, ‘“Sodomitical sins are threefold”: typologies of bestiality, masturbation and homosexuality in Sweden, 1880–1950’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 9 (2000), p. 261Google Scholar.
10 See Crozier, Ivan, ‘“All the world's a stage”: Dora Russell, Norman Haire, and the 1929 London World League for Sexual Reform Congress’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12 (2003), pp. 16–37, at pp. 16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Béla Neufeld, ‘A Szexuálreform Világligájának V. Nemzetközi Kongresszusa’ (The 5th International Congress of the League for Sexual Reform), Korunk, 7 (1932), www.korunk.org/?q=node/8&ev=1932&honap=11&cikk=5810 (accessed 6 Oct. 2018).
12 Béla Totis, Az ifjúság nemi problémái: levelek fiamhoz (The sexual problems of youth: letters to my son) (Budapest, 1931), p. 31.
13 Simonovits, István and Kárpáti, Endre, ‘Schönstein Sándor dr. életéről és munkásságáról’ (On the life and work of Dr Sándor Schönstein), Orvosképzés, 55 (1980), pp. 463–75Google Scholar.
14 Sándor Schönstein, ‘A munkásifjúság és a nemi kérdés’ (Working youths and the sexual questions), 100%, 3 (1930), pp. 399–401.
15 Ibid.
16 Ferenc Erős, Pszichoanalízis, freudizmus, freudomarxizmus (Psychoanalysis, Freudism, Freudomarxism) (Budapest, 1986), p. 169.
17 Neufeld, ‘A Szexuálreform Világligájának V. Nemzetközi Kongresszusa’.
18 Erős, Ferenc, ‘A Korunk című folyóirat és a pszichoanalízis’ (The journal Korunk and psychoanalysis), Pszichológia, 6 (1986), pp. 293–307Google Scholar; Harmat, Pál, ‘A régi Korunk és a pszichoanalízis’ (The old Korunk and psychoanalysis), Korunk, 3 (1992), pp. 99–106Google Scholar.
19 Neufeld, Béla, ‘Világnézet és Szexualitás’ (Worldview and sexuality), Korunk, 7 (1932)Google Scholar, http://epa.oszk.hu/00400/00458/00277/1932_011_5826.html (accessed 6 Oct. 2018).
20 Gábor Szegedi, ‘Az onanista alakja a 20. századi Magyarországon’ (The figure of the onanist in 20th century Hungary), Korall, 17 (2016), pp. 32–52, at pp. 39–43, http://epa.oszk.hu/00400/00414/00057/pdf/EPA00414_korall_2016_66_032–052.pdf (accessed 6 Oct. 2018).
21 Established by Freud's friend and colleague, Sándor Ferenczi. See Mészáros, Judit, ‘Sándor Ferenczi and the Budapest School of Psychoanalysis’, Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 7 (2010), pp. 69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Mihály Bálint claimed that both the anti-Semitism of the Horthy regime and the fact that psychoanalysis was considered a left-wing activity put members of the School under immense pressure. Quoted in Anna Borgos, Holnaplányok: Nők a pszichoanalízis budapesti iskolájában (Tomorrow-girls: women in the Budapest School of Psychoanalysis) (Budapest, 2018), p. 260.
23 Gyömrői, Edit, ‘A gyermekkori félemekről’ (On childhood fears), Gyermeknevelés, 2 (1936), pp. 132–3Google Scholar.
24 Mészáros, ‘Sándor Ferenczi and the Budapest School’, pp. 76–7.
25 For sexuality in the Stalinist Soviet Union, see Hoffmann, David, Stalinist values: the cultural norms of Soviet modernity, 1917–1941 (Ithaca, NY, 2003), pp. 88–117Google Scholar; Bernstein, Frances, The dictatorship of sex: lifestyle advice for the Soviet masses (DeKalb, IL, 2007)Google Scholar; Livschiz, Ann, ‘Battling “unhealthy relations”: Soviet youth sexuality as a political problem’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 21 (2008), pp. 397–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Fenemore, Mark, ‘The growing pains of sex education in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), 1945–69’, in Sauerteig, Lutz D. H. and Davidson, Roger, eds., Shaping sexual knowledge: a cultural history of sex education in twentieth century Europe (New York, NY, 2009), pp. 71–91, at pp. 73–4Google Scholar.
27 Jarska, Natalia, ‘Modern marriage and the culture of sexuality: experts between the state and the church in Poland, 1956–1970’, European History Quarterly, 49 (2019), pp. 474–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Béla Neufeld, ‘Vívódó élet’ (A life of reflection), unpublished diary, location: Fol. Hung. 3430. Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár kézirattár, pp. 242–5.
29 Anton Szemjonovics Makarenko, Válogatott pedagógiai tanulmányok (Selected pedagogical essays) (Budapest, 1949), pp. 319, 322, English translation: www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makarenko/works/lectures/lec07.html (accessed 6 Oct. 2018).
30 Géza Káplány, ed., A serdülő gyermek nevelése (Raising the adolescent child) (Budapest, 1953), p. 13.
31 Takács, Judit, ‘Disciplining gender and (homo)sexuality in state-socialist Hungary in the 1970s’, European Review of History, 22 (2014), pp. 161–75, at p. 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Kateřina Lišková and Gábor Szegedi, ‘Sex and gender norms in marriage: comparing expert advice in socialist Czechoslovakia and Hungary between the 1950s and 1980s’, History of Psychology (forthcoming).
33 (székely), ‘Beszélgetés Dr. Hirschler Imrével’ (Conversation with Dr Imre Hirschler), Egészségügyi Dolgozó, 19 (1975), p. 3.
34 In fact, the 1958 book sold out its original run of 100,000 copies within months. See review of ‘A nők védelmében’ (In defence of women), Magyar Nemzet, 16 May 1958, p. 7.
35 Tamás Földvári, ‘Az Egyetemi hallgatók szexuális felvilágosultságáról és nemi erkölcséről’ (On the sex education and sexual morals of university students), Egészségügyi Felvilágosítás, 5 (1964), pp. 278–81.
36 Hirschler, Imre, A nők védelmében (In defence of women) (Budapest, 1965), pp. 17–19Google Scholar.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., p. 30.
39 Totis, Az ifjúság nemi problémái, pp. 4–5.
40 Ibid., p. 35.
41 Ibid., p. 36.
42 Ibid., p. 39.
43 Ibid., p. 40.
44 Ibid., p. 41.
45 Székely, Lajos, ‘A nemi felvilágosítás és nevelés kérdéséhez’ (To the question of sexual enlightenment and education), Gyermekgyógyászat, 18 (1967), pp. 487–9, at p. 487Google Scholar.
46 Ibid.
47 János Rainer M., Bevezetés a kádárizmusba (Introduction to Kádárism) (Budapest, 2011), pp. 149–83.
48 Ibid., p. 165.
49 Ibid., pp. 165–8.
50 Ibid., pp. 173–5.
51 Miklós Lehmann, ‘Az elidegenedés- és antropológia-vita politikai összefüggései’ (The political consequences of the alienation and the anthropology debate), conference paper presented on 19 Nov. 1998 at the conference ‘Magyar történetírás a XX századról’ (Hungarian historiography on the 20th century).
52 Ibid., p. 8.
53 Ibid., p.11.
54 Heller, Ágnes, A mindennapi élet (Everyday life) (Budapest, 1970)Google Scholar.
55 István Haraszti, A nemi élet kérdései (The questions of sexual life) (Budapest, 1958).
56 László Dezséry, Lányok–Fiúk (Girls–boys) (Budapest, 1958). Dezséry also hosted a weekly show on national radio called Hétvégi Jegyzetek (Weekend notes), where he read his writings on social issues.
57 Gyurkó, László, ‘Erkölcs és dogmák’ (Morality and dogmas), Új Írás, 2 (1962), pp. 753–9Google Scholar.
58 Ibid., pp. 743–59.
59 Heller, Ágnes, ‘Erkölcs és dogmák’ (hozzászólás) (Morality and dogmas: commentary), Új Írás, 2 (1962), pp. 1425–30Google Scholar; Huszár, Tibor, ‘Erkölcs és dogmák’ (hozzászólás) (Morality and dogmas: commentary), Új Írás, 2 (1962), pp. 1158–62Google Scholar.
60 Harsányi, István, ‘“Kerekasztal” az ifjúság szexuális neveléséről’ (‘Roundtable’ on the sexual education of youths), Pedagógiai Szemle, 14 (1964), pp. 306–14, at p. 309Google Scholar.
61 István Harsányi, ‘“Kerekasztal” az ifjúság szexuális neveléséről’ (‘Roundtable’ on the sexual education of youths), Pedagógiai Szemle, 15 (1965), pp. 194–203.
62 Ibid.
63 Pál Bakonyi, ‘“Kerekasztal” az ifjúság szexuális neveléséről – Vitazáró közlemény (‘Roundtable’ on the sexual education of youths – closing remarks), Pedagógiai Szemle, 15 (1965), pp. 1052–60.
64 Interview with Péter Nádas, which originally appeared in Gyermekünk (Dec. 1977), pp. 10–12; the full transcript can be found here: www.elyseum.hu/nadasinterju.pdf, quotes from p. 16. For further information, see the posthumous blog run by Hirschler's son: www.elyseum.hu (accessed 22 Oct. 2018).
65 Ibid., p. 17.
66 Kon, Igor S., The sexual revolution in Russia: from the age of czars to today (New York, NY, 1995), p. 96Google Scholar.
67 Ibid., pp. 96–7.
68 Kon, I. Sz., Kultúra – Szexológia (Culture – sexology) (Budapest, 1981)Google Scholar.
69 Kon, The sexual revolution in Russia, pp. 101–5.
70 Siegrfried Schnabl, Mann und Frau intim (Berlin, 1974), p. 101 (my translation).
71 Quotation and translation from McLellan, Josie, Love in the time of communism: intimacy and sexuality in the GDR (Cambridge, 2011), p. 90Google Scholar.
72 He wrote the first, and as Donna Harsch reminds us, for a long time, the only manual for married couples in 1957, which was then republished twenty-one times. See Harsch, Donna, Revenge of the domestic: women, the family and communism in the German Democratic Republic (Princeton, NJ, 2007), p. 134Google Scholar.
73 Neubert, Rudolf, Die Geschlechterfrage (Rudolfstadt, 1969), p. 80Google Scholar.
74 Ibid., p. 81.
75 Jarska, ‘Modern marriage and the culture of sexuality’.
76 See Lišková, Kateřina, Sexual liberation, socialist style: communist Czechoslovakia and the science of desire, 1945–1989 (Cambridge, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Heitlinger, Alena, Reproduction, medicine and the socialist state (New York, NY, 1987), p. 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 For different developments in socialist but independent (not Soviet bloc) Yugoslavia, see Loránd, Zsófia, The feminist challenge to the socialist state in Yugoslavia (London, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Franko Dota, ‘Public and political history of male homosexuality in socialist Croatia, 1945–1989’ (Ph.D. thesis, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu, 2017).
79 János Weiss, ‘A filozófusper és következményei. Történeti-filozófusi rekonstrukció’ (The Philosophers' Trial and its consequences. Historical-philosopher's reconstruction), Fordulat, 3 (2010), pp. 150–67.
80 Tibor Huszár, Kádár János politikai életrajza (The political biography of János Kádár), ii (Budapest, 2003), pp. 234–55.
81 Lehmann, ‘Az elidegenedés- és antropológia-vita politikai összefüggései’, p. 11.
82 Buda was first a researcher of the Országos Ideg- és Elmegyógyintézet (National Institute for Neurology and Mental Health). In 1978, he became head of psychotherapy in Sportkórház (Budapest Sports Hospital), and in the 1970s, he became one of the most prolific authors and renowned sexological experts in Hungary.
83 Béla Buda, A szexualitás modern elmélete (The modern theory of sexuality) (Budapest, 1972), p. 6.
84 Ibid., pp. 6–7.
85 Buda mentioned Hirschler in passing; however, A nők védelmében was not listed in the literature.
86 Buda, Béla, ‘Az önkielégítés’ (Masturbation), Orvosi Hetilap, 117 (1976), pp. 2903–8Google Scholar.
87 E.g. in his major publication on homosexuality. See Buda, Béla, ‘Homoszexualitás’ (Homosexuality), Orvosi Hetilap, 110 (1969), pp. 2137–49Google Scholar.
88 Buda, Béla, ‘Meeting of the International Academy for Sex Research’, Orvosi Hetilap, 121 (1980), pp. 39–43Google Scholar.
89 Ibid., p. 43.
90 Ibid.
91 Szilárd, János, ‘A szexológiai hazai helyzetéről – és a hazai pszichiátria néhány problémájáról’ (On the situation of sexology in Hungary – and some problems of psychiatry in Hungary), Orvosi Hetilap, 121 (1980), p. 173Google Scholar.
92 Vilmos Szilágyi, ‘A szexuális kultúra és a szexuálterápia úttörője’ (A pioneer of sexual culture and sex therapy), in Emőke Bagdy, Zsolt Demetrovics, and János Pilling, eds., Polihistória: Köszöntők és tanulmányok Buda Béla 70. születésnapja alkalmából (Polihistory: salutations and essays for the 70th birthday of Béla Buda) (Budapest, 2009), p. 112. Imre Hirschler was the first honorary president of the Working Committee, Vilmos Szilágyi its secretary.
93 In the twentieth century, psy-sciences, or psychological sciences, became primary techniques of knowledge/power in a Foucauldian sense, evaluating human conduct and ‘disciplining human difference’. See Rose, Nikolas, Inventing our selves: psychology, power, personhood (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 13 and 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
94 Csaba Pléh, Önarckép háttérrel (Self-portrait with background), ed. Péter Bodor, Csaba Pléh, and Gusztáv Lányi (Budapest, 1998), pp. 305–6.
95 For the achievements of Czechoslovak sexology under communism, see Lišková, Sexual liberation, socialist style. For Poland, see Kościańska, Agnieszka, ‘Sex on equal terms? Polish sexology on women's emancipation and “good sex” from the 1970s to present’, Sexualities, 19 (2016), pp. 236–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
96 See, for example, György Hunyady, ‘Hetvenöt év magyar pszichológia’ (Seventy-five years of Hungarian psychology), in György Hunyady, ed., A szociálpszichológiai történeti olvasatai (The historical readings of social psychology) (Budapest, 2006), pp. 199–213; Pléh Csaba, Bodor Péter, and Lányi Gusztáv, ‘Egy társadalomtudomány elnyomatása és újjászületése: a magyar pszichológiai sorsa az egyéni sorsok tükrében’ (Oppression and rebirth of a social science: the fate of Hungarian psychology in the light of the fates of individuals), in Pléh, Önarckép háttérrel, pp. 303–10.
97 Melinda Kovai, Lélektan és politika: pszichotudományok a magyarországi államszocializmusban 1945–1970 (Psychology and politics: psy-sciences under state socialism in Hungary 1945–1970) (Budapest, 2016), pp. 464–74.
98 Lajos Székely, Családi élet iskolája (School of family life) (Budapest, 1971), p. 83.
99 Dobos László, Az apák felelőssége a nevelésben (The responsibility of fathers in education) (Budapest, 1972), p. 67.
100 Imre Aszódi and János Brencsán, A házasélet abc-je (The ABC of married life) (Budapest, 1979), p. 106.
101 Buda, A szexualitás modern elmélete, p. 148.
102 Ibid., p. 150.
103 Ibid., p. 154.
104 Ibid.
105 Ibid., p. 155.
106 Ibid.
107 Buda, ‘Az önkielégítés’.
108 Ibid., p. 2903.
109 Ibid., p. 2904.
110 Ibid., p. 2906. Buda cited a more current source, the sexual psychologist Vilmos Szilágyi, as the ‘representative of modern sexual pedagogy’.
111 Eszter Zsófia Tóth and András Murai, Szex és szocializmus (Sex and socialism) (Budapest, 2014), pp. 62–3.
112 Vilmos Szilágyi was a leading sexologist while Pál Veres, Sándor Székely, László Buga, and Péter Bolya (Dr B. P.) all had degrees in medicine.
113 Éva Földvári, ‘Miért üzen az orvos?’ (Why does the doctor send a message?), Jel-Kép, 3 (1983), pp. 127–34.
114 Ibid., p. 130.
115 Ibid., p. 133.
116 ‘Magán/Válogatott ügyek’ (Private/selected affairs), Ifjúsági Magazin, 19 (1983), p. 61.
117 ‘Buga doktor üzeni’ (Buga doctor's messages), Szabad Föld, 37 (1981), p. 15.
118 ‘Az orvos válaszol’ (The doctor responds), Családi Lap, 20 (1975), p. 23.
119 ‘Orvosi üzenetek’ (Doctor's messages), Új Tükör, 20 (1983), p. 44.
120 ‘Az orvos válaszol’ (The doctor responds), Magyar Ifjúság, 26 (1982), p. 32.
121 Totis, Az ifjúság nemi problémái, p. 126.
122 Ibid., pp. 128–9.
123 Hirschler, A nők védelmében, p. 37.
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid., pp. 137–8.
126 Ibid., p. 139.
127 Ibid., p. 140.
128 Lišková, Kateřina, ‘Sexological spring? The 1968 international gathering of sexologists in Prague as a turning point’, in Manning, Patrick and Savelli, Matt, eds., Global transformations in the life sciences, 1945–1980 (Pittsburgh, PA, 2018), pp. 120–1Google Scholar.
129 Buda, Béla, ‘A homoszexualitás’ (Homosexuality), Ifjúsági Magazin, 14 (1978), p. 59Google Scholar.
130 This fully social etiology fitted the Eastern European pattern mentioned above. Interestingly, a leading Czechoslovak psychiatrist at the 1968 Prague conference, Vladimír Vondráček, tried to open a middle way by claiming that the father's role in inheritance was social, while the mother's was biological. Lišková, ‘Sexological spring?’, p. 120.
131 Buda, ‘A homoszexualitás’, p. 59.
132 Aszódi and Brencsán in A házasélet abc-je claimed that homosexuality ‘spread via a young person coming under the influence of an older homosexual’ (p. 80). Vilmost Szilágyi, just like Buda, saw it as a botched version of psychosexual development; it was undesirable for society, as society needed more children. See Vilmos Szilágyi, Szexuális kultúránkról (On our sexual culture) (Budapest, 1986), pp. 284–7.
133 Questions on homosexuality only made it once to the sex advice column of Ifjúsági Magazin, and the response was pathologizing, the expert offering heterosexual relationships as the best ‘cure’. See ‘Doktor úr, kérem’, Ifjúsági Magazin, 20 (1984), p. 55. Judit Takács also notes the lack of homosexuality-related topics in the 1970s. Takács, ‘Disciplining gender and (homo)sexuality’, pp. 166–7.
134 Szilágyi, ‘A szexuális kultúra és a szexuálterápia úttörője’, p. 112. Imre Hirschler was the first honorary president of the Working Committee, Vilmos Szilágyi its secretary.
135 Vilmos Szilágyi, ‘A szexuálterápiai kiképző tanfolyamról’ (On the training for sexual therapy), in Vilmos Szilágyi, ed., ‘Az első magyar szexológiai konferencia referátumai’ (Presentations of the First Hungarian Sexological Conference) (manuscript, Magyar Pszichiátriai Társaság, Budapest, 1985), pp. 62–7.
136 Miklós Tóth, ‘A szexuálterápia új útjai’ (New ways in sexual therapy), in Szilágyi, ed., ‘Az első magyar szexológiai konferencia referátumai’, pp. 67–76.
137 Imre Aszódi, ‘A szexuálterápiát akadályozó tényezők’ (Factors inhibiting sexual therapy), in Szilágyi, ed., ‘Az első magyar szexológiai konferencia referátumai’, pp. 76–83.
138 Miklós Tóth and Zsuzsa Stadinger, Bevezetés a szexuálterápiába (Introduction to sexual therapy) (Budapest, 1988), p. 19; William Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Human sexual inadequacy (Boston, MA, 1970), pp. 206–42.
139 Lux, Elvira, Szexuálpszichológia (Sexual psychology) (Budapest, 1981)Google Scholar.
140 Ibid., pp. 146–52.
141 Ibid., pp. 152–76.
142 Tóth, Miklós, ‘A női orgazmus problémája és jelentősége a terápia szempontjából’ (The problem and significance of the female orgasm from the perspective of therapy), Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle, 40 (1983), pp. 436–51Google Scholar.
143 E.g. Helen Singer Kaplan, Joseph LoPiccolo, and, of course, Masters and Johnson. Out of fifty-four references, only one was Hungarian (Buda) and three articles were from Freud.
144 Tóth, ‘A női orgazmus problémája és jelentősége a terápia szempontjából’, p. 443.
145 In Czechoslovakia, Stanislav Kratochvíl had already introduced Masters and Johnson-style therapy in the 1970s. There was one major difference: in Czechoslovakia the female orgasm had already been researched in the 1950s and the new style of therapy only meant that sexologists’ attention shifted from the social causes of female pleasure (being productive members of society) to coupling techniques resulting in orgasms. See Lišková, Sexual liberation, socialist style, pp. 147–56.
146 Tóth, ‘A női orgazmus problémája és jelentősége a terápia szempontjából’, p. 449. For reference, he used the article Fisher, William A. and Byrne, Donn, ‘Sex differences in response to erotica? Love versus lust’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (1978), pp. 117–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
147 Vilmos Szilágyi, Szexuális kultúránkról (On our sexual culture) (Budapest, 1983), pp. 130–1.
148 Ibid., p. 134.
149 Lux, Szexuálpszichológia, pp. 174–5.
150 Lišková observes a similar process in 1970s Czechoslovakia, where sexologists did not believe any more in using their science to induce social change and focused on sex therapy within the private sphere of a family that was built on strict gender hierarchy. Lišková, Kateřina, ‘Sex under socialism. From emancipation of women to normalized families in Czechoslovakia’, Sexualities, 19 (2016), pp. 211–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
151 Judit Acsády reports that American second-wave classics were unavailable in state socialist Hungary. Acsády, Judit, ‘Államszocializmus – nők – ellenzékiség’ (State socialism – women – opposition), TNTEF, 8 (2018), pp. 1–15, at p. 6Google Scholar.
