Abstract: In my wide-ranging and lengthy article “John F. Kennedy’s Sexual Promiscuity, Robert Moore’s Thought About the Archetypes of Maturity, and Walter J. Ong’s Thought About Secondary Orality,” I discuss the general topics named in the overly long title. For my account of John F. Kennedy’s sexual promiscuity, I rely on the American journalist Maureen Callahan’s account of his sex life in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not: The Kennedys and the [Thirteen] Women They Destroyed.
Thomas J. Farrell
University of Minnesota Duluth
I published my first op-ed commentary in my high school student newspaper in 1961. In it, I quoted President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address challenging us not to ask what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country. Of course, at the age of sixteen, I had not yet done anything notable for my country – I hadn’t even voted yet. Yet I found the sentiment inspiring! And I wanted to express my approval of the sentiment and urge my fellow high school students to join me in aspiring to do something for my country.
I was idealistic when I wrote that first op-ed commentary. But I had followed Senator Kennedy’s 1960 campaign. He was of Irish descent, and my paternal grandparents had immigrated to this country from Ireland. He was a Roman Catholic, and so was I. Born in 1917, he was about the same age as my parents; my father was born in 1916; my mother, in 1918. Kennedy was in the navy in World War II and was a hero. My father was in the Army in WWII and was decorated for his bravery. In any event, in 1960, I was a fan of John F. Kennedy.
Subsequently, when I transferred as a junior to Saint Louis University in the fall semester of 1964, I took my first course there from Father Walter J. Ong (1912-2003; Ph.D. in English, Harvard University, 1955) and became an Ong fan.
In the early 1990s, I became a fan of the Jungian psychotherapist and psychological theorist Robert Moore (1942-2016; Ph.D. in religion and psychology, University of Chicago, 1975) of the Chicago Theological Seminary.
When I say that I became a fan of each of these three men, I mean that I was to a certain degree infatuated with each of them – or, more precisely, with what I perceived to be certain admirable qualities in each of them. In Robert Moore’s terminology about the eight archetypes of maturity in the human psyche, I projected the masculine Lover archetype in my psyche onto each of these three men in the process of becoming a fan — and thereby also becoming infatuated with each of them. (I discuss this kind of projection more below.)
However, in the present essay, I will be discussing John F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Marilyn Monroe extensively. Each of these four persons had many fans who were infatuated with them – and projected the optimal and positive forms of archetypes from their psyches onto each of them. That is, each of these four persons was made to carry the archetypal projections of their respective fans. No doubt being made to carry the archetypal projections of many fans is a heady experience – and one that I have not had.
But what does carrying the archetypal projections of many fans do to the person made to carry those projections? I have no idea how to answer this pertinent question. It strikes me as extremely unlikely that the person made to carry the archetypal projections of many fans would be totally unaffected by carrying those projections. But I am not sure how to estimate how each of these four persons was affected by being made to carry the archetypal projections of many fans.
For example, we know that Marilyn Monroe was celebrated as a sex symbol. As a sex symbol, she evoked the optimal and positive form of the feminine Lover archetype in her male fan’s psyches. But how did being made to carry the optimal and positive form of the feminine lover archetype in her male fans’ psyche make her feel about herself? Did it, for example, make her feel like a goddess? If it did, how did feeling like a goddess affect her life and her experiences in life? As I say, I do not know how to answer this question about Marilyn Monroe.
Now, as you might expect, I was heart-broken when President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas – 61 years ago.
As you might expect, I was seriously disenchanted subsequently when revelations of John F. Kennedy’s sexual promiscuity before and after his marriage to Jacqueline Bouvier began to surface. And I was further disillusioned about John F. Kennedy when subsequent revelations came out about his medical history.
For information about John F. Kennedy’s medical history, see Robert Dallek’s An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963 (2003).
For information about John F. Kennedy’s sexual promiscuity, at least up to 1956, see Fredrik Logevall’s JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century, 1917-1956 (2020; for specific page references concerning his sexual promiscuity, see the outstanding “Index” [p. 767]).
Maureen Callahan’s 2024 Feminist Book Ask Not
In any event, in the American journalist Maureen Callahan’s 2024 feminist book Ask Not: The Kennedys and the [Thirteen] Women They Destroyed, she reviews various revelations about John F. Kennedy’s sexual promiscuity before and after his marriage to Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. Mareen Callahan’s perceptive and cogent analysis of John F. Kennedy’s sexual promiscuity caught my attention, and so in the present essay, I want to discuss certain highlights in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not.
The most efficient way for me to provide you with an overview of Maureen Callahan’s 2024 feminist book Ask Not is to tell you its contents (which will also provide you with the names of the thirteen women she highlights in her book):
“Author’s Note” (p. xi).
“Prologue” (pp. xiii-xvii).
Part One: “Icons: Carolyn Bessette [and] Jackie Bouvier Kennedy” (two chapters, pp. 1-43).
Part Two: “The Girls: Mimi Beardsley and Diana de Vegh” (pp. 43-57).
Part Three: “The Bombshell: Marilyn Monroe” (pp. 59-67).
Part Four: “The Lonely Graves: Mary Richardson Kennedy [and] Kick Kennedy” (two chapters, pp. 69-101).
Part Five: “Ted’s Blondes: Mary Jo Kopechne [and] Joan Bennett Kennedy” (two chapters, pp. 103-141).
Part Six: “The Mythmaker [of the Myth of Camelot]: Jackie Kennedy” (pp. 143-185).
Part Seven: “Stolen Youth: Pamela Kelley [and] Martha Moxley” (two chapters, pp. 187-197).
Part Eight: “Falling Stars: Marilyn Monroe [and] Jackie Kennedy Onassis” (two chapters, pp. 199-229).
Part Nine: “Homes for Wayward Girls: Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy [and] Rosemary Kennedy” (two chapters, pp. 231-247).
Part Ten: “Rebels: Joan Kennedy [and] Carolyn Bessette Kennedy” (two chapters, pp. 249-285).
Part Eleven: “Survivors: Mimi Beardsley and Diana de Vegh” (pp. 287-297).
Part Twelve: “Phoenix: Jackie Bouvier Onassis” (pp. 299-313).
“Epilogue” (pp. 315-328).
“Acknowledgments” (pp. 329-331).
“Kennedy Family Tree” (p. 332).
“Bibliography” (pp. 333-341).
“Notes” (pp. 343-365).
“Index” (pp. 367-381).
Photos of the thirteen women destroyed by the Kennedys are scattered throughout the text.
There are four chapters devoted to Jackie; two, to Marilyn Monroe.
Now, according to the Wikipedia entry on “Maureen Callahan,” “Callahan worked as a writer, editor and later columnist for the New York Post from 2002 to September 2022. She has worked as a columnist for Daily Mail since October 2022.
“In 2024, Callahan published Ask Not: The Kennedys and the [Thirteen] Women They Destroyed. Ask Not became an instant New York Times bestseller.”
As we will see momentarily, certain ridiculous teachings, in my estimate, of the Roman Catholic Church loom large in certain parts of Maureen Callahan’s 2024 feminist book Ask Not. However, the book’s “Index” contains no main entry and no sub-entries about Catholicism or the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, in Maureen Callahan’s Part Nine: “Homes for Wayward Girls: Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy [and] Rosemary Kennedy,” she accentuates certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church – ridiculous teachings, in my estimate, that have not yet been officially expunged from the record. Maureen Callahan says, hyperbolically, “The only Catholic more devout than Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy [1890-1995] may have been the pope. Rose’s mother [Mary Josephine Hannon Fitzgerald (1865-1964)] worshipped at the altar of the Virgin Mary, having built a permanent shrine in their home. Rose went to parochial school, where she was taught by nuns who believed that a woman’s greatest accomplishment was to suffer well – also a literal teaching. The sisters wore hardware around their necks and wrists meant to inflict pain at the slightest movement.
“It was masochism enshrined as virtue, a lesson Rose also absorbed at home. Women suffered; men sought pleasure. Her mother spent her nights at home, on her knees in prayer, while Rose’s father, John Fitzgerald [1863-1950], the mayor of Boston, ran around town with a parade of women.
“This was Rose’s preordained future: to be a supplicant, not the fierce intellect she was at her core, [not] the political animal who thrived under her father’s tutelage – her father being one of the few American politicians to court the support of women, even though they couldn’t yet vote” (p. 233). (American women won the right to vote in 1920.)
Subsequently, Maureen Callahan says, “And so, in 1914, Joe [Kennedy] and Rose were married in a modest Catholic ceremony in Boston, united not just by their shared faith and politics but also [by] a shared grudge against Protestants, WASPs, and any other group that routinely ostracized Irish Catholics. Their exclusion from Boston’s polite society would fuel Joe’s determination that he or one of his sons would become the first Irish Catholic American president” (p. 234).
For a relevant discussion of the WASP heritage in American culture, see Robert C. Christopher’s 1989 book Crashing the Gates: The De-WASPing of America’s Power Elite – which began in earnest with the election of Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts as president of the United States in 1960.
“When it came to sex, however, Rose and Joe were at odds. Rose subscribed to the Church’s teachings that sex was permissible only for making babies, not for intimacy and certainly not for pleasure. After having Teddy, her ninth child in February 1932, Rose told Joe she would never have sex with him again. ‘This idea of yours that there is no romance outside procreation is simply wrong,’ Joe said. ‘It was not part of our contract at the altar. The priest never said that, and the books don’t argue that’” (p. 234).
Then Maureen Callahan writes, “Did Rose have it coming? Did she leave her husband no other option than to sleep with other women? And if so, did she deserve this degree of suffering? Joe stayed out night after night and constantly traveled on so-called business, even as she had baby after baby in those first years of marriage: Joe, Jack, Rosemary” (pp. 234-235).
Subsequently, Maureen Callahan says, “oh, how her [Kick’s] brothers would laugh and make fun, mocking their mother behind her back for the way their father cheated on her, flaunting his infidelity. Joe would bring his lovers home, parade them around the front porch, take them sailing – Jack, at twelve, had actually plunged off the side of a boat once he realized that Dad and his movie star girlfriend were having sex on board. Joe had his paramours over to family dinners, seated at the table like any other guest” (p. 238).
Now, I have heard the expression “Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma’am!” used to characterize a certain kind of approach that some men take to having sex with a woman.
No, Maureen Callahan does not happen to use this expression to characterize Jack Kennedy’s approach to sexual intercourse. However, from what Maureen Callahan does say about his approach to sexual intercourse, it strikes me that this expression could be used to sum up his approach. Simply stated, Jack Kennedy did not excel in making love to a woman – as Maureen Callahan makes abundantly clear.
In Maureen Callahan’s Part Two: “The Girls: Mimi Beardsley and Diana de Vegh” in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not (pp. 43-58), she says, “When Dave [Powers (1912-1998)] called, Mimi [Beardsley] answered. She never made plans after work – never made any friends, really – because this was too big a secret. She only cared about being available to the president. It didn’t seem like a sacrifice; if anything, she felt special. Of all the women he could be with, the president of the United States had chosen nineteen-year-old Mimi Beardsley. So on those workdays when Dave [Powers] called, Mimi would wait to be taken upstairs [in the White House]. . . .
“Sometimes they would bathe together and he [President Kennedy] would charm Mimi with his boyishness, playing with the rubber duckies he said belonged to his children.
“Mimi tried not to think of his children, either.
“The president, it turned out, was compulsive about showering, sometimes up to five times a day. He changed his dress shirts as frequently, if not more. It never occurred to Mimi that this was something other than hygiene. Obsessive-compulsive disorder never crossed her mind. Nor was she aware of his hyper-promiscuity, that he was often washing away the smell of sex. She was too young and inexperienced to wonder even further, to ask herself if the president, despite his compulsivity, even liked sex all that much, or liked women that much. He only ever really came alive, in a sustained way, in the company of men. She was too much in the throes of hero worship to ever wonder if he found sex dirty” (p. 54).
Now, I admit that I have difficulty imagining nineteen-year-old Mimi Beardsley who lost her virginity to the president of the United States and then continued to sleep with him in the White House whenever he summoned her for this purpose.
For further discussion of Mimi Beardsley, see the Wikipedia entry on “Mimi Alford” (born on May 7, 1943).
But also see Mimi Alford’s 2012 bestselling book Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath, which Maureen Callahan draws on extensively. But let’s move on now to the equally young Diana de Vegh, who was twenty years old when she began her affair with Jack Kennedy in 1958.
For her discussion of Diana de Vegh, Maureen Callahan draws extensively on Diana de Vegh’s article “JFK and the Radcliffe Girl: For the First Time Ever, One of the Former President’s Lovers Tells Her Story” (dated August 28, 2021) in Air Mail.
Now, Maureen Callahan says that “the only other person who knew about their relationship [the relationship of President Kennedy and Diana de Vegh] was Diana’s current boyfriend, a journalist at Time named Billy Brammer.
“Billy asked her why she was involved with Jack. Diana was beautiful, young, educated, [and] wealthy. Her father was a famous economist. Didn’t she want more for herself than to be the president’s plaything? Jack Kennedy did, after all, have quite a reputation among the press and politicos in DC.
“‘Nothing will come of it,’ Diana told him. ‘But he has a hold on me.’
“She was hardly the only woman he had a hold on. There was Pamela Turnure, Jackie’s newly appointed press secretary; Judith Campbell Exner, who had been involved with Frank Sinatra and mob boss Same Giancana; and Helen Chavchavadze, first cousin to Jackie’s spurned fiancé, John Husted.
“And then, of course, there was Marilyn Monroe, whose ongoing affair with jack dated back to 1955.
“That was supposed to be a secret, too” (pp. 57-58).
I would add here that President Kennedy also carried on a two-year affair with Mary Pinchot Meyer (1920-1964). But Maureen Callahan mentions her only once in passing (p. 296).
For further discussion, see the Wikipedia entry of “Mary Pinchot Meyer.”
But also see Peter Janney’s superb book Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace (2012).
In any event, in an online article titled “How Many women Did JFK Bed? A Detailed List of the President’s Affairs” (dated September 1, 2021), author Alex Brown lists eleven women Jack Kennedy had affairs with: (1) Marily Monroe; (2) Judith Exner; (3) Inga Arvad; (4) Anita Ekberg; (5) Ellen Rometsch; (6) Gene Tierney; (7) Mimi Alford; (8) Marlene Dietrich; (9) Mary Pinchot Meyer; (10) Priscilla Wear; (11) Jill Cowan.
In Maureen Callahan’s 2024 feminist book Ask Not, she does not mention (4) Hollywood actress Anita Ekberg, (5) high-class call-girl Ellen Rometsch, or (6) Hollywood actress Gene Tierney.
In another online article titled “Meet JFK’s Alleged Mistresses – and How Some Met Mysterious Ends: From Marilyn Monroe to Judith Exner, these are the women with whom President John F. Kennedy allegedly strayed” (dated March 18, 2024) in People, author Lindsay Kimble identifies and discusses (1) Diana de Vegh; (2) Judith Exner; (3) Marilyn Monroe; (4) Mary Pinchot Meyer; (5) Mimi Alford; (6) Jill Cowan; and (7) Priscilla Wear.
In Maureen Callahan’s 2024 feminist book Ask Not, she briefly discusses both Jill Cowan and Priscilla Wear (pp. 45-46 and 53).
In Maureen Callahan’s Part Two: “The Girls: Mimi Beardsley and Diana de Vegh,” she says, “The doors swung open on the second floor [of the White House], and instantly Mimi felt relieved. There, seated on sofas and surrounded by bookshelves, were Jill cowan and Priscilla Wear, two girls around Mimi’s age. They had also joined President Kennedy in the pool that afternoon. This was an unusual White House, but then again, this was an unusual president: he was young, good-looking, cool. Of course, things would be looser. Maybe this was how the president kept in touch with the youth of America. Maybe this was how he liked to unwind – light chatter with pretty girls. Why not?” (pp. 47-48).
“‘Have a daiquiri.’ [Dave] Powers was filling a large glass from a pitcher. Mimi wasn’t a drinker.
“‘Thanks,’ she said.
“The daiquiri went down sweet and easy. Powers refilled her glass.
“Mimi had a nice little buzz on. She sat and listened to Jill and Priscilla as they talked about the absent Jackie Kennedy” (p. 48).
Subsequently, Maureen Callahan says, “Mimi didn’t know about Diana [de Vegh], but she quickly realized that Jill Cowan and Priscilla Wear, his frequent playmates in the White House pool, were among his favorite young female staffers” (p. 53).
Now, in a conversation in the White House, Maureen Callahan reports in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not, “Jack [Kenned] kept trying to placate her [Diana de Vegh].
“‘We’ve been together in this from the beginning,’ he said, and for all Diana’s starry-eyed infatuation, this struck her as glib. Jack was just trying to get her into bed. There would be no wining, no dining, no romance – his attention was on other things, more important things. There would only be fast, technical sex with Jack Kennedy, man on the move” (p. 58).
Then Maureen Callahan says, “For all their growing knowledge of Jack’s faults, neither Mimi nor Diana knew that he could be a real sadist. Humiliation and sex went hand in hand for him. He was at his best during the chase, but once he seduced you, he seemed to think less of you” (p. 58).
Now, in Maureen Callahan’s Part Eleven: “Survivors: Mimi Beardsley Alford and Diana de Vegh” in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not (pp. 287-298), she says, “She [Mimi] had no idea that this wasn’t personal or unique to her [i.e., how Mimi had “‘obeyed the president’s command . . . [and] was deeply embarrassed afterward’” – years afterward]. She had no idea how utterly lacking in boundaries the Kennedys were, that the president frequently enjoyed group sex, that he and his brothers and father considered it normal to sleep with the same women and pass them around. And even if she [young Mimi] had [some about all of this], she still wouldn’t have been able to leave his orbit. It was too intoxicating, too rarified” (p. 284). I have no doubt it was.
Maureen Callahan’s statement “that he [Jack] and his brothers and father considered it normal to sleep with the same women and pass them around” sounds a bit abstract. However, in Maureen Callahan’s Part Eight: Falling Stars: Marilyn Monroe [and] Jackie Kennedy Onassis” in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not (pp. 201-229), her account of Marilyn Monroe’s concurrent affairs with Jack and Bobby is not abstract (pp. 201-211). In any event, Marilyn Monroe’s death at the age of 36 was tragic.
For further discussion, see the Wikipedia entry on “Marilyn Monroe.” In part, it says, “On May 19 [1962], she [Marilyn Monroe] took a break to sing ‘Happy Birthday, Mr. President’ on stage at President John F. Kennedy’s early birthday celebration at Madison Square Garden in New York. She drew attention with her costume: a beige, skintight dress covered in rhinestones, which made her appear as if she were nude.” In an accompanying discussion note, we read the following: “Monroe and Kennedy had mutual friends and were familiar with each other. Although they sometimes had casual sexual encounters, there is no evidence their relationship was serious.”
Well, on the part of President Kennedy, their relationship probably was not serious. However, at least at times, Marilyn Monroe did think that their relationship was serious.
According to Maureen Callahan’s account in her 2024 book Ask Not (esp. pp. 209-210), “The FBI and the CIA, Bobby and Jack discovered, had bugged Marilyn’s house and her phone line. It was a coordinated attempt to bring down both Kennedys – didn’t she get that? Marilyn had no idea what Bobby was talking about.
“Peter Lawford arrived and Bobby tried to play good cop. ‘We have to know,’ Bobby said. He was still yelling, but trying now to bargain rather than bully. ‘It’s important to the family. We can make any arrangements you want, but we must find it.
“‘Calm down.’ Lawford told Bobby. ‘Calm down.’
“Something or someone got pushed into the wall or down to the floor. Then Bobby and Peter left. Hours later, at 7:30 that evening, Marilyn called Peter at home. He and Pat were throwing a party; Bobby would probably come, and they were all still expecting Marilyn, too. But she would not be coming, now or ever. She had no last words for Bobby.
“‘Say goodbye to Pat,’ Marilyn said to Peter, ‘say goodbye to the President, and say goodbye to yourself, because you’re a nice guy.’
“Her body was found early the next morning, in predawn dark, by her housekeeper. She was face down on her bed, nude, with her phone still in her hand. She had been dead for hours” (p. 210).
Now, because Marilyn Monroe was carrying on affairs with both Kennedy brothers, you might think that we would have heard about the tape-recordings that the CIA and FBI made clandestinely at her house. However, in Maureen Callahan’s “Epilogue” in her 2024 book Ask Not, she tells us, “Audiotapes from Marilyn’s surveillance systems also went missing, as did her diary” (p. 322).
Incidentally, Maureen Callahan’s 2024 book Ask Not is not cited in the Wikipedia entry on “Marilyn Monroe,” and so it is not listed as one of the 30 different sources of information about her at the end of the entry.
Now, “‘When John Kennedy lost interest in me,’ Diana wrote years later, . . . ‘I also lost interest in me’” (p. 295).
“She was, she wrote, ‘mired in shame’” (p. 295).
Now, in Maureen Callahan’s Part Six: “The Mythmaker: Jackie Kennedy” in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not (pp. 145-168), she continues her exploration of President Kennedy’s love making.
Maureen Callahan says, “There were so many women that Jackie [Kennedy] didn’t know all of their names – or so she told the doctor [Frank Finnerty (1924-2011)]. She was strong and prideful. She suspected that Lee [Jackie’s sister] had slept with her husband – just once, she was sure – but never said a thing. She knew about Jack and Pamela Turnure, her own assistant. She knew about Jack’s euphemistic ‘pool parties’ held almost daily in the White House – often attended by his brothers Ted and bobby and by Jack’s various lackeys – and the two young White House secretaries who would join them [Priscilla Wear and Jill Cowan – known as Fiddle and Faddle]” 9p. 148).
“She [Jackie] knew about his penchant for picking up girls while traveling and having three-ways, four-ways, five-ways, swapping hookers with his buddies. She knew about the fifteen-year-old babysitter Jack had gotten pregnant back when he was a senator” (p. 148).
“Jackie really didn’t think that Jack loved any of these women. He treated them like the help – they came when he called, left when he told them to, and were to expect nothing from him. But she was tired of keeping the problems in her marriage secret. ‘Jack needs to expel some kind of hormonal surge,’ she told Dr. Finnerty. ‘I don’t think he even has affection for them. It’s just this intrinsic part of his life, a vicious trait he inherited from his father.
“There was one woman, Jackie said, who did bother her: Marilyn Monroe. She didn’t go into detail, but the doctor intuited that no other paramour made Jackie as insecure. He was right.
“Jackie had never talked so freely. In Finnerty she had found a true confidant. His trustworthiness, his lack of judgment or shock, his ability to come at problems practically and clinically gave Jackie the courage to share her most private dilemma: her sex life with her husband.
“For a man with such a libido, Jackie said, Jack was terrible in bed. She hadn’t had that many experiences before she married, but she wanted more from her husband. Was it her fault?
“‘He [Jack] just goes too fast and falls asleep,’ Jackie said. Little did she know that this was the complaint of every woman who had had sex with Jack Kennedy: no kissing, no buildup, no intensity or sensuality or fun. He just attacked you like a dog humping a leg. He never lasted longer than three minutes and didn’t even seem to enjoy sex. It was like a compulsion. There was never anything remotely personal about it for him” (pp. 148-149).
I admire Maureen Callahan’s empathy for Jackie here – just as I also admire her empathy for Mimi and Diana. As a matter of fact, Maureen Callahan’s empathy for all thirteen of the women she highlights in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not is admirable.
Nevertheless, I would point out that Maureen Callahan has not identified “every woman who had sex with Jack Kennedy.” Consequently, she could not possibly know that “every woman who had sex with Jack Kennedy” had this complaint about his love making.
For example, does Maureen Callahan know that Priscilla Wear and Jill Cowen, the two White house secretaries (known as Fiddle and Faddle), who were two of Jack’s favorite fuck buddies (and who also sexually serviced his buddies at the pool parties), had this complaint about his love making with them? As far as I know, Priscilla Wear and Jill Cowan have made no public statements about their sex lives when they were secretaries in the White House.
Moreover, Maureen Callahan’s description of Jack “attack[ing] you like a dog humping a leg” is repulsively graphic – it’s gross and sensationalistic!
Granted, by all accounts, Jack Kennedy’s sexual promiscuity was not “remotely personal about it.” For the sake of discussion, let’s say that many of his sex partners over the years were themselves also sexually promiscuous.
Question: When a sexually promiscuous teenage boy or man hooks up with a sexually promiscuous teenage girl or woman for the purpose of having sex, is there ever “anything remotely personal about it” for either of them?
Now, apart from the Wikipedia entry on “Maureen Callahan,” I know nothing else about Maureen Callahan. Nevertheless, I dare say that she was probably not sexually promiscuous as a girl or as a woman. Good for her.
I was not sexually promiscuous as a boy or as a man. However, from what I have learned from three different women who were sexually promiscuous as girls, I am sure that there was never “anything remotely personal about” their having sex as promiscuous girls with boys and men.
Robert Moore’s Thought About Archetypes of Maturity
Now, in some of my recent OEN articles, I have discussed the work of the late Jungian psychotherapist and psychological theorist Robert Moore, mentioned above, regarding the masculine Lover archetype and the feminine Lover archetype in the human psyche – and the two “shadow” of each of those two archetypes of maturity: (1) The Addicted Lover “shadow” form; and (2) The Impotent Lover “shadow” form.
See, my OEN article “Robert Moore on Optimal Human Psychological Development” (dated (September 17, 2024).
But also see my OEN article “Thomas J. Farrell’s Encore on Robert Moore” (dated October 10, 2024).
Now, throughout John F. Kennedy’s life, he was mainlining The Addicted Lover “shadow” form of the masculine Lover archetype in his psyche – which is to say, that The Addicted Lover “shadow” form of the masculine Lover archetype is his psyche drove him to seek out girls and women to have sex with.
Jack Kennedy’s tendency to humiliate the girls and women he had sex with indicates that he was mainlining The Impotent Lover “shadow” form of the feminine Lover archetype in his psyche as well as The Sadist “shadow” form of the masculine Warrior/Knight archetype in his psyche as well as The Tyrant “shadow” form of the King archetype in his psyche.
However, Jack Kennedy’s ability to come alive in the company of men probably indicates that he was mainlining The Addicted Lover “shadow” form of the masculine Lover archetype in his psyche.
Now, I do not come alive in the company of men. Consequently, I admire this quality in Jack Kennedy. However, because I have here attributed this quality of Jack Kennedy’s to his mainlining The Addicted Lover “shadow” form of the masculine Lover archetype in his psyche, I now have to say that I have been mainlining The Impotent Lover “shadow” form of the masculine Lover archetype in my psyche. Ah, but above, before I had explained Robert Moore’s psychological theory about the bipolar “shadow forms of each of the eight archetypes of maturity in the human psyche, I said that I was a fan of John F. Kennedy and a fan of Robert Moore and a fan of Walter J. Ong, and I said that by being a fan I was infatuated with each of these three men and that my infatuation with each of them involved my projecting the masculine Lover archetype in my psyche onto each of them in turn. Yes, when we become infatuated with a certain person, we are projecting the optimal and positive form of the masculine Lover archetype or the feminine Lover archetype in our psyches onto that one person. So there is the real person, on the one hand, and, on the other, there is our projection onto the real person. Our projection onto the real person makes the real seem admirable and desirable. Yes, to be sure, the real person may be admirable and desirable to a certain degree. Our projection onto that person heightens that degree considerably in our eyes.
Now, Jack Kennedy’s prizing of Jackie Kennedy’s intelligence coupled with his general tendency to prize the best and brightest people around shows that he was mainlining The Detached Manipulator “shadow” form of the masculine Magician/Shaman archetype in his psyche.
In certain other events in President Kennedy’s shortened term in office that are not covered in Maureen Callahan’s understandably laser focused 2024 feminist book Ask Not, President Kennedy alternately mainlined The Tyrant “shadow” form and The Weakling “shadow” form of the King archetype in his psyche.
In my considered judgment, John F. Kennedy never learned how to access the optimal and positive forms of the four masculine archetypes of maturity in his psyche. But he was a photogenic and telegenic and, at memorable times, even an inspiring president.
Now, as for Maureen Callahan, I dare say here that she has devoted her life to mainlining The Impotent Lover “shadow” form of the masculine Lover archetype in her psyche – just as I have.
But Maureen Callahan’s gross and sensationalistic characterization of Jack Kennedy as “attack[ing] you like a dog humping a leg” probably shows that she is mainlining The Impotent Lover “shadow” form of the feminine Lover archetype in her psyche.
However, Maureen Callahan’s admirable empathy for Mimi and Diana and Jackie and the other women she profiles in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not probably shows that she is mainlining The Addicted Lover “shadow” form of the feminine Lover archetype in her psyche – because a strong experience of empathy for another person involves either the feminine Lover archetype or the masculine Lover archetype in the psyche of the empathizing person, depending on the gender of the person with whom one is empathizing.
Now, according to Robert Moore’s theory, the goal for all of us is to move beyond the sixteen “shadow” forms of the eight archetypes of maturity in the human psyche to accessing the optimal and positive form of each of the eight archetypes of maturity in our psyches.
Because I have now credited Maureen Callahan with probably mainlining both The Impotent lover “shadow” form of the masculine Lover archetype and The Addicted Lover “shadow” form of the feminine Lover archetype in her psyche, the next great step forward for Maureen Callahan in her psychological development will be to learn how to access the optimal and positive form of the feminine Lover archetype in her psyche as well as the optimal and positive form of the masculine Lover archetype in her psyche – which will be a great challenge for her to do, just as it is a great challenge for me and for all of us to do.
Now, in Maureen Callahan’s “Prologue” in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not (pp. xiii-xvii), she says, “The Kennedys remain very much with us. But what is the Kennedy legacy, really? How should we define it? Do the Kennedys deserve to remain a power center in American life and politics? Or should we relegate them to their inglorious past? If not, what should we now demand of any Kennedy who seeks power?
“We can answer only by fully reckoning with how the Kennedys have brutalized women throughout generations. The pattern originates with the ruthless patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., a financially and sexually rapacious man who fathered nine children. His path to power would be through his sons; his daughters were bred for marriage and babies [as was Jacqueline Bouvier and her sister Lee], worthless as anything else in his eyes. Ever the overachiever, Joe committed two original sins. The first was political, and it would keep him from ever becoming president: his open admiration, as United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, of Adolf Hitler and his bloodless acceptance of the looming death of Western democracy. This was followed by his personal original sin: the unthinkable act he committed against his beautiful young daughter Rosemary, who suffered a fate worse than death [when her father had her lobotomized]. These are the poisonous roots from which all Kennedy misogyny and violence – psychological, physical, political, and personal – has flourished” (pp. xvi-xvii).
I say, “Amen” to Maureen Callahan’s justified indictment of Joe Kennedy, Sr., and his tragic legacy to his family and, through them, to us. The time has come for Americans to shed the myth of Camelot about President Kennedy’s tragically shortened term that the grieving widow Jackie Kennedy constructed after his assassination. There was no Camelot. But there was a photogenic and telegenic president of the United States straight out of central casting – who had a photogenic and telegenic wife.
Now, in my two OEN articles, I have mentioned that the men and women who perform sex acts in heterosexual porn videos are mainlining The Addicted Lover “shadow” forms of both the masculine and the feminine Lover archetypes in their psyches. In those heterosexual porn scenes, the man and the woman are acting their respective roles in a skit. In addition, the porn scenes are not short; they are typically drawn out. Those heterosexual porn scenes are not examples of Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma’am! – but Jack Kennedy’s love making, even with his wife Jackie, did typically resemble Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma’am!
Now, I know of two married women, both of whom have had breast implant surgery to enhance the appearance and appeal of their gorgeous bodies, who perform sex acts in heterosexual porn scenes with their real-life husbands – frequently in skits with them in the ubiquitous porn genre of mom-son sex scenes. Remember the skits in porn videos involve role playing, and so the persons acting in the roles do not have to be the right ages for the roles they are playing – these skits are fantasies!
The fantasy in mom-son porn videos involves the millions of boys and men of all ages who watch them to imagine fucking their own mothers. In mom-son porn videos, the mom always looks gorgeous and sexually desirable. Typically, she takes the sexual initiative in seducing the son, although there are mom-son variations. So she not only looks sexually desirable, she also typically sounds and acts sexually desirable and sexually available.
No, despite the ubiquity of mom-son porn videos on the internet, I do not expect to see the longstanding cultural taboo regarding real mom-son sex to change in the foreseeable future.
However, I dwell here for a moment on the ubiquity of mom-son porn videos to point out that these extremely popular porn videos undoubtedly resonate with the archetypal level of the collective unconscious of their male viewers.
In Edward C. Whitmont’s book Return of the Goddess (1982), he writes of what he refers to as the return of the goddess in the human psyche, after the apparent absence, of perhaps withdrawal, previously. I interpret what Whitmont refers to as the return of the goddess in the human psyche to mean that for many centuries previously the goddess level of the human psyche in the collective unconscious had not been interacting or resonating with ego-consciousness. I will return to this interpretation momentarily.
Now, I have no idea what their real-life sex lives of those two women and their husbands are like – apart from the obvious fact that whatever the specific features of the skits in their heterosexual porn scenes are not reflections of their real-life sex lives. Which is to say that a married woman in a porn video may enjoy having sex with her real-life husband in a fantasy mom-son skit.
However, those two women who perform with their real-life husbands in mom-son porn videos are the exception. Most women who perform in heterosexual porn videos are not performing with their real-life husbands, but with male performers. The skits make their performances of sex acts seem personal. But the woman and the man may be complete strangers in real life.
Of course, in addition to mom-son porn videos, there are other kinds of heterosexual porn videos – some of which (e.g., gangbang porn videos) do not always seem to make the sex acts seem personal, but rather impersonal – just bodies hooking up with one another.
However, I do want to make a further point here about heterosexual porn videos that are free online for millions of boys and men of all ages to watch and enjoy. The performers in those heterosexual porn videos make the sex acts they are performing look like fun in some sense of the term. In the various things that Maureen Callahan says in her 2024 feminist book Ask Not about Jack Kennedy’s love making, the most disturbing is that he was not fun to have sex with.
If this means that the girls and women with whom he had sex did not find it fun, this is disturbing enough to learn about his love making.
However, if it means that Jack himself did not have fun in his love making, this is tragic to learn about him and his love making.
Now, I mention the aspect of heterosexual porn usually involving a man and a woman who are strangers to one another to use it as a springboard here to another thought about Jack Kennedy’s lack of personal involvement with his many sex partners over the years. For all practical purposes, Jack Kennedy and his many sex partners over the years were, in effect, complete strangers to one another, just as the many women who perform sex acts with many different men in porn videos are complete strangers to one another apart from being in the same studio and performing sex acts together on camera.
Yes, I am suggesting that we should now regard this aspect of free online heterosexual porn as the appropriate standard for our judging the real-life practices of men and women who are sexually promiscuous. Yes, this standard enables us to see impersonal sex as impersonal sex (i.e., not as personal sex).
Yes, I happen to think that personal sex is the more desirable standard for us to apply to ourselves and to others as the preferred ideal standard for sex.
No, it does not necessarily follow that we should accept and condone sexual promiscuity.
Rather, we should recognize sexual promiscuity as an addiction that certain people have because they are mainlining The Addicted Lover “shadow” form of the feminine or the masculine Lover archetypes in their psyches – or both.
Now, for an accessible account of the masculine archetypes of maturity, see Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s 1990 book King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine (HarperSanFrancisco/ HarperCollins).
For a detailed discussion of the masculine Lover archetype in the human psyche, see Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s 1993 book The Lover Within: Accessing the Lover [Archetype] in the Male Psyche. The bipolar “shadow” forms of the masculine Lover archetype and the feminine Lover archetype in the human psyche are The Addicted Lover “shadow” form and The Impotent Lover “shadow” form.
For a detailed discussion of the masculine Warrior/Knight archetype in the human psyche, see Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s 1992 book The Warrior Within: Accessing the Knight [Archetype] in the Male Psyche. The bipolar “shadow” forms of both the masculine Warrior/Knight archetype and the feminine warrior/Knight archetype in the human psyche are The Sadist “shadow” form and The Masochist “shadow” form. In Maureen Callahan’s 2024 book Ask Not, she says, “For all their growing knowledge of Jack’s faults, neither Mimi nor Diana knew that he could be a real sadist [especially toward women]” (p. 58). When Jack Kennedy was “a real sadist [toward women],” he was mainlining The Sadist “shadow” form of the feminine Warrior/Knight archetype in his psyche. Subsequently, speaking of the devout Catholic Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy’s mother and certain Catholic nuns, she says, “It was masochism enshrined as virtue, a lesson Rose also absorbed at home” (p. 233). Rose was mainlining The Masochist “shadow” form of the feminine Warrior/Knight archetype in her psyche.
For a detailed discussion of the masculine Magician/Shaman archetype in the human psyche, see Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s 1993 book The Magician Within: Accessing the Shaman [Archetype] in the Male Psyche. The bipolar “shadow” forms of the masculine Magician/Shaman archetype and of the feminine Magician/Shaman archetype in the human psyche are The Detached Manipulator “shadow form and The Denying “Innocent” One “shadow” form.
For a detailed discussion of the King archetype in the human psyche, see Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s 2007 revised and expanded second edition of their book The King Within: Accessing the King [Archetype] in the Male Psyche (1st ed., 1992). The bipolar “shadow” forms of the King archetype and of the Queen archetype in the human psyche are The High Chair Tyrant “shadow” form and The Weakling Prince/The Wekling Princess “shadow” form.
Walter J. Ong’s Thought About Secondary Orality
Now, the time has now come for me to return to my analysis and interpretation of Whitmont account of the return of the goddess in the human psyche.
I align what Whitmont refers to as the return of the goddess in the human psyche with what The American Jesuit scholar Walter J. Ong, mentioned above, refers to as the emergence of secondary oral culture (i.e., the culture induced by communications media that accentuate sound [television, telephone, radio, tape-recording devices, movies with soundtracks, and the like]) in our Western cultural history from about 1960 onward.
Because Whitmont refers to the return of the goddess in the human psyche, I also interpret the centuries of the apparent absence of the goddess from interacting with and resonating with ego-consciousness as the result of what Ong refers to as the print culture that emerged in our Western cultural history after the Gutenberg printing press emerged in Europe in the mid-1450s.
Ong studied the media ecology impact of the Gutenberg printing press that emerged in Europe in the mid-1450s in his pioneering media ecology account of the aural-to-visual shift in cognitive processing in our Western cultural history in his massively researched 1958 book Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason (for specific page references to the aural-to-visual shift, see the “Index” [p. 396]). Peter Ramus (1515-1572) was the French Renaissance logician and educational reformer and Protestant martyr. Ong’s massively researched 1958 book is a history of the formal study of logic from Aristotle down to Ramus and beyond.
In the print culture that emerged in our Western cultural history after the Gutenberg printing press emerged in Europe in the mid-1450s, major cultural events included the development of modern science, the development of modern capitalism, the development of modern democracy, including our American experiment in representative democracy, the development of the Industrial Revolution, and the development of the Romantic movement in literature, philosophy, and the arts.
For Ong, what he refers to as our contemporary secondary oral culture (i.e., the culture induced by the communications media that accentuate sound [e.g., television, telephone, radio, tape-recording devices, movies with soundtracks, and the like]) is also a significant development in media ecology that is comparable to the significant development of the Gutenberg printing press and print culture.
In Ong’s “Preface” in his 1977 book Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (pp. 9-13), he states his relationist media ecology thesis regarding major cultural developments:
In the first sentence, Ong says the following: “The present volume carries forward work in two earlier volumes by the same author, The Presence of the Word (1967) and Rhetoric Romance, and Technology (1971).” He then discusses these two earlier volumes.
Then he says, “The thesis of these two earlier works is sweeping, but it is not reductionist, as reviewers and commentators, so far as I know, have all generously recognized: the works do not maintain that the evolution from primary orality through writing and print to an electronic culture, which produces secondary orality, causes or explain everything in human culture and consciousness. Rather, the thesis is relationist: major developments, and very likely even all major developments, in culture and consciousness are related, often in unexpected intimacy, to the evolution of the word from primary orality to its present state. But the relationships are varied and complex, with cause and effect often difficult to distinguish” (pp. 9-10).
Thus, Ong himself claims (1) that his thesis is “sweeping” but (2) that the shifts do not “cause or explain everything in human culture and consciousness” and (3) that the shifts are related to “major developments, and very likely even all major developments, in culture and consciousness.”
Now, in effect, Ong implicitly works with this thesis in his massively researched book Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason (1958).
Next in Ong’s 1977 “Preface,” he explains certain lines of investigation that he further develops in Interfaces of the Word. Then he says, “At a few points, I refer in passing to the work of French and other European structuralists – variously psychoanalytic, phenomenological, linguistic, or anthropological in cast” (p. 10).
Ong liked to characterize his own thought as phenomenological and personalist in cast. I have honored both os these aspects of Ong’s mature work from the early 1950s onward in the subtitle of my award-winning book Walter Ong’s contributions to Cultural Studies: The Phenomenology of the Word and I-Thou Communication (2000) – which won the Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in Media Ecology, conferred by the Media Ecology Association in June 2001.
Now, please note just how careful and cagey Ong’s wording is when he says that his account of the evolution of certain changes does not “explain everything in human culture and consciousness” – or every cause.
On the one hand, Ong’s terminology about primary oral culture (and primary orality, for short; and his earlier terminology about primarily oral culture) is sweeping inasmuch as it refers to all of our pre-historic human ancestors.
On the other hand, his cagey remark about sorting out cause and effect does not automatically rule out the possibility that certain changes somehow contributed to the eventual historical development of writing systems and specifically phonetic alphabetic writing (= literacy) as well as to the historical development of human settlement in agriculture (or agrarian) societies and economies.
Now, taking various hints from Ong’s publications, I have written about what he refers to as our contemporary secondary oral culture in my 1991 essay “Secondary Orality and Consciousness Today” in the well-organized anthology titled Media, Consciousness, and Culture: Explorations of Walter Ong’s Thought, edited by Bruce E. Gronbeck, Thomas J. Farrell, and Paul A. Soukup (1991, pp. 194-209).
In my 1991 essay “Secondary Orality and Consciousness Today,” I discuss the Jungian analyst Erich Neumann’s Jungian synthesis in his book The Origins and History of Consciousness, translated from the German by R. F. C. Hull (1954; orig. German ed. 1949). In Ong’s 1971 book Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology: Studies in the Interaction of Expression and Culture, he ably summarizes the eight stages of consciousness that Neumann discusses in detail (pp. 10-11):
“The stages of psychic development as treated by Neumann are successively (1) the infantile undifferentiated self-contained whole symbolized by the uroboros (tail-eater), the serpent with it tail in its mouth, as well as be other circular or global mythological figures [including Nietzsche’s imagery about the eternal return?], (2) the Great Mother (the impersonal womb from which each human infant, male or female, comes, the impersonal femininity which may swallow him [or her] up again), (3) the separation of the world parents (the principle of opposites, differentiation, possibility of change, (4) the birth of the hero (rise of masculinity and of the personalized ego) with its sequels in (5) the slaying of the mother (fight with the dragon: victory over primal creative but consuming femininity, chthonic forces), and (6) the slaying of the father (symbol of thwarting obstruction of individual achievement, [thwarting] what is new), (7) the freeing of the captive (liberation of the ego from endogamous [i.e., “married” within one’s psyche] kinship libido and the emergence of the higher femininity, with woman now as person, anima-sister, related positively to ego consciousness), and finally (8) the transformation (new unity in self-conscious individualization, higher masculinity, expressed primordially in the Osiris myth but today entering new phases with heightened individualism [such as Nietzsche’s overman] – or, more properly, personalism – of modern man [sic]).”
Incidentally, Erich Neumann has written extensively about the Great Mother in his other big book The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype, translated from the German by Ralph Manheim (1955; I do not know when the original German edition was published).
Ong also sums up Neumann’s Jungian account of the stages of consciousness in his (Ong’s) book Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness (1981, pp. 18-19; but also see the “Index” for further references to Neumann [p. 228]), the published version of Ong’s 1979 Messenger Lectures at Cornell University.
As you can see, Ong sees the cutting edge of consciousness today in our contemporary secondary oral culture with stage eight of the eight stages of consciousness discussed by Neumann. However, I see what Whitmont refers to as the return of the goddess in our contemporary secondary oral culture as involving stage seven of the eight stages of consciousness that Neumann discusses: “(7) the freeing of the captive (liberation of the ego from endogamous [i.e., married within] kinship libido and emergence of the higher femininity, with woman now as person, anima-sister, related positively to ego consciousness).”
However, to spell out the obvious, John F. Kennedy and his brothers and father did not attain stage seven of the eight stages of consciousness discussed by Neumann – unfortunately, they did not experience “woman now as person, anima-sister, related positively to ego consciousness.”
Incidentally, I have also profiled the sexually promiscuous Donald Trump in my OEN article “What Can We Expect in Donald Trump’s Second Term?” (dated November 19, 2024).
In conclusion, the American journalist Maureen Callahan is a feminist, and her 2024 book Ask Not: The Kennedys and the [Thirteen] Women They Destroyed is feminist analysis at its finest. The time has come for fans of President John F. Kennedy to shed the myth of Camelot (pp. xiv, 185, 188, and 222) that the grieving Jackie Kennedy started after her husband’s tragic assassination in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. As a teenage fan of John F. Kennedy, I am thankful for Maureen Callahan’s clear-eyed account of his sexual promiscuity and for shining a bright light on the dark side of so many Kennedy men.
Because I am still a loyal fan of Robert Moore’s epochal work on the eight archetypes of maturity and their associated sixteen “shadow” forms, I here characterize Maureen Callahan as shining a bright light on the dark side of so many Kennedy men – in Robert Moore’s handy terminology the “shadow” forms of the four masculine archetypes of maturity in their psyches.
Because I continue to be a loyal fan of Walter J. Ong’s mature work from the early 1950s onward, it still remains for me to round off my discussion of his account (Ong, 1971, pp. 10-11; and Ong, 1981, pp. 18-19) of our contemporary American consciousness in terms of the eight stages of consciousness that Erich Neumann discusses in his still useful account of The Origins and History of Consciousness (1954), with respect to feminism in American cultural history. No doubt second-wave feminism that emerged in American culture in the 1960s was a further inbreaking of feminism in American culture. That is, first-wave feminism, which won American women the vote in 1920, was the first and initial inbreaking of feminism in American cultural history. Maureen Callahan’s feminism in her 2024 book Ask Not advances the spirit of second wave feminism in American culture.
Now, there is an expression about two steps forward, one back. Something like that pattern has characterized the inbreaking of feminism in American cultural history. So in 2024, we had the publication of Maureen Callahan’s feminist book Ask Not, but we also had the election of the sexually promiscuous misogynist Donald J. Trump to a second term as president of the United States, resoundingly defeating a black woman.
Now, the inbreaking of organized feminism in American cultural history represents a collective vanguard of feminists spearheading the collective movement into what Neumann and Ong describe as stage seven of the eight stages of consciousness: “the freeing of the captive (liberation of the ego from endogamous kinship libido and emergence of the higher femininity, with woman now as person, anima-sister, related positively to ego consciousness)” (Ong, 1971, p. 11).
OK, endogamous kinship libido refers to libido married, figuratively speaking, within the psyche. Every child, male and female, marries (figuratively speaking), or projects and bonds is or her libido energy within his or her psyche with his or her mother and father (or mother-figure and father-figure). For better or worse, this is the inner psychic story that we need to consider as the deeper background for the ubiquitous mom-son porn videos and the father-daughter porn videos that are avail free on the internet. Remember, there was a time before which incest-themed porn videos became popular and then there was a time after which incest-themed porn videos became popular. The extraordinarily popular pornstar Jenna Jameson represents the historical period of porn before incest-themed porn became popular.
Whatever else may be said to account for the historical emergence of incest-themed porn videos, I am here suggesting that we should take into account endogamous kinship libido and its role in incest-themed porn videos that are available free on the internet. I am here suggesting that incest-themed porn videos may be the symbolic cutting edge, as it were, in the inner psychic movement of the viewers emerging development of stage seven of the eight stages of consciousness described by Neumann and Ong.
Put differently, in the foreseeable future, I do not expect to see any significant changes in longstanding sexual taboos involving incest, despite the enormous popularity of incest-themed porn videos on the internet. The enormous popularity of incest-themed porn videos depends on the widespread recognition of longstanding taboos involving incest. The longstanding taboos involving incest contribute to the titillating appeal of incest-themed porn videos. No societal taboos = No appeal of incest-themed porn videos. But the deeper question is, “What psychodynamics are activated in the viewers of incest-themed porn videos?” Yes, they are titillating. That much is obvious about their appeal. But there is most likely more to their inner appeal to the viewers than just the obvious surface titillation involved in viewing them. For example, it appears that male viewers watch not only the ubiquitous mom-son porn videos, but also father-daughter porn videos. Yes, the bodies of the women over 18 playing the role of the daughter are sexually attractive to the male viewers. That’s on the surface. But is there also a deeper psychodynamic involved in the male viewers watching father-daughter porn videos? I suspect that there is – and I suspect that the deeper psychodynamic involves the male viewers psychological development of stage seven of the eight stages of consciousness.
Yes, indeed, individual persons must move into stages seven of the eight stages of consciousness one by one. No doubt about that. Consciousness is personal and therefore individual psychic development. Nevertheless, we do live a group life as Americans together, and so certain individuals must spearhead the individual and personal movement of consciousness into stage seven – which is what Maureen Callahan is attempting to do in her 2024 book Ask Not. The trick for Maureen Callahan and other feminists is to avoid projecting the “shadow” forms of the archetypes of maturity in their psyches onto their fellow Americans who may not yet be ready to advance to stage seven of the eight stages of consciousness described by Neumann and Ong. Put differently, if and when American feminists project “shadow” forms of the eight archetypes of maturity in their psyches onto their fellow Americans, their fellow Americans will undoubtedly resist their feminist efforts – by activating certain “shadow” forms of the archetypes of maturity in their own psyches.
References
Alford, M. (2012). Once upon a secret: My affair with John F. Kennedy and its aftermath. Random House.
Anonymous. (2024). Marilyn Monroe. Wikipedia URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe
Anonymous. (2024). Mary Pinchot Meyer. Wikipedia URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pinchot_Meyer
Anonymous. (2024). Maureen Callahan. Wikipedia URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Callahan
Anonymous. (2024). Mimi Alford. Wikipedia URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimi_Alford
Browne, A. (2021, September 1). How many women did JFK bed? A detailed list of the president’s affairs. HistoryHit URL: https://www.historyhit.com/a-detailed-list-of-jfks-affairs.
Callahan, M. (2024). Ask not: The Kennedys and the [thirteen] women they destroyed. Little, Brown and Company/ Hachette Book Group.
Christopher, R. C. (1989). Crashing the gates: The de-WASPing of America’s power elite. Simon and Schuster.
Dallek, R. (2003). An unfinished life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963. Little, Brown and Company.
De Vegh, D. (2021, August 28). JFK and the Radcliffe girl: For the first time ever, one of the former president’s lovers tells her story. AIR Mail URL: www.airmail.news/issues/2021-8-28/j-f-k-and-the-radcliffe-girl
Farrell, T. J. (1991). Secondary orality and consciousness today. Media, consciousness, and culture: Explorations of Walter Ong’s thought (pp. 194-209; B. E. Gronbeck, T. J. Farrell, and P. A. Soukup, Eds.). Sage Publishing.
Farrell, T. J. (2000). Walter Ong’s contributions to cultural studies: The phenomenology of the word and I-thou communication. Hampton Press.
Farrell, T. J. (2024, September 17). Robert Moore on optimal human psychological development. www.opednews.com URL: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Robert-Moore-on-Optimal-Hu-Catholic_Catholic-Church_Catholicism-Vatican-Pope_Christian-Religion-240917-255,html
Farrell, T. J. (2024, October 10). Thomas J. Farrell’s encore on Robert Moore. www.opednews.com URL: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Thomas-J-Farrell-s-Encore-Feminine-Archetypes_Jungian-Psychology-241010-128.html
Farrell, T. J. (2024, November 19). What can we expect in Donald Trump’s second term? www.opednews.com URL: https://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Can-We-Expect-in-Dona-2024-Presidential-Election_Cultural-Cognition_Cultural-Revolution_Donald-Trump-241119-502.html
Janney, P. (2012). Mary’s mosaic: The CIA conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and the vision for world peace. Skyhorse Publishing.
Kimble, L. (2024, March 18). Meet JFK’s alleged mistresses – and how some met mysterious ends: From Marilyn Monroe to Judith Exner, these are the women with whom President John F. Kennedy allegedly strayed. People URL: https://people.com/politics/john-f-kennedys-mistresses/
Logevall, F. (2020). JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century, 1917-1956. Random House.
Moore, R., and D. Gillette. (1990). King, warrior, magician, lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the mature masculine. HarperSanFrancisco/ HarperCollins.
Moore, R., and D. Gillette. (1992b). The warrior within: Accessing the knight [archetype] in the male psyche. William Morrow.
Moore, R., and D. Gillette. (1993a). The magician within: Accessing the shaman [archetype] in the male psyche. William Morrow.
Moore, R., and D. Gillette. (1993b). The lover within: Accessing the lover [archetype] in the male psyche. William Morrow.
Moore, R., and D. Gillette. (2007). The king within: Accessing the king [archetype] in the male psyche, revised and expanded second edition. Exploration Press. (Original work published 1992a)
Neumann, E. (1954). The origins and history of consciousness (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Pantheon books. (Original book published 1949)
Neumann, E. (1955). The great mother: An analysis of the archetype (R. Manheim, Trans.). Pantheon books. (Original work published not known)
Ong, W. J. (1958). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue: From the art of discourse to the art of reason. Harvard University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1971). Rhetoric, romance, and technology: Studies in the interaction of expression and culture. Cornell University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1977). Interfaces of the word: Studies in the evolution of consciousness and culture. Cornell University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1981). Fighting for life: Contest, sexuality [gender], and consciousness. Cornell University Press.
Whitmont, E. C. (1982). Return of the goddess. Crossroad Publishing.
