Harding defines the constructionist perspective as the belief that sexuality has no inherent essence but must be understood as a configuration of cultural meanings (Harding 6-17). In other words, human sexuality is not defined by biology at all, but instead is completely culturally constructed. The constructionist’s primary focuses are cultural institutions, norms, practices and relations, and how these define human sexuality. An example from Harding’s essay states that a study of the history of sexuality has shown that sexuality has changed greatly throughout human history (Harding 6-17). If s... ... middle of paper ... ...ld servants had nicknames,” (Watson 178-187).
Leisure first explains to the reader what a natural law would consist of, if it were in fact to be “a law in nature” rather than a “man made law.” Currently in our legislation, debates about homosexuality and same sex marriage are being discussed. Hence, Homosexuals are being deprived of marriage, yet expecting nothing in return for their future outcome besides that of marriage itself, leisure writes, “ Natural laws are not passed by any legislator or group of legislators; they impose no obligation upon anyone or anything; their violation entails no penalty, and there is no reward for following them or abiding by them (158)”. We can conclude that when homosexuals practice their sexual preference, they are not acting in accordance with an unnatural manner. Leisure asserts that perhaps they meant “natural” is something man cannot intervene with, and that by saying something is “not natural, we mean that it is a product of human artifice” (159). Hence, What many in a society would consider natural may not so be in this sense; for natural means that the “substance of which it is composed have not been removed from t... ... middle of paper ... ...vice versa.
In “History and Sexuality Vol. I”, Foucault concerns himself primarily with the idea of sex, and how sex is influenced by, and influencing society and individuals. Sex is traditionally viewed as a real, biological entity from which we conclude that there is such a thing as sexuality. Foucault disagrees, arguing that sex is an “imaginary thing” produced by the idea of sexuality in order to maintain a coherent image (Foucault, 155-156). The body is a conglomerate of culturally constituted meanings, and sex is an “imaginary point” (CITE)- the mere result of a materiality.
However, Corvino responds to this by arguing many of the human organs can be used for different functions, therefore we cannot make an argument defending only sexual organs. In his work he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural when stating, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean” (Corvino 84). He uses this statement to support his claim that gay sex is morally natural by proving that society often claims many “unnaturally” processed goods as being natural. If this is the case then we cannot define a human function as “unnatural” with any moral justification. Although Corvino is commonly persecuted by for his beliefs, he continues to justify his reasoning for gay sex by arguing against societies inconsistency in condemnation for sexual acts.
To have ritual power is not to be male or female, as Ortner suggests, but to take on aspects of the opposite gender, a binary opposition that Butler fails to acknowledge, such that ritual participants transcend gender categories. Thus the ‘gender of power’ is the unified totality of gender signals and powers. Finally, there is the Turnarian implication that the ability to transcend gender roles in ritual space revitalises the extant binary gender of mundane society in much the same way that periodic rituals of anti-structure revitalise society’s mundane social structure.
However, queer theorists use these texts and reinterpret them to “seek a new culture and history sought to uncover a period of past social life” (Herdt, 1997, p. 9). Herdt notes that queer theory attempts to expose and subvert the social hierarchies of “power that define normality” (1997, 9). However, in order to do this Herdt notes that within queer theory attempts to deconstruct sexual identity and refuse “all classification and all notions of normality” (Herdt, 1997, p. 9). In saying this, queer theorist believe that one’s sexual identity is based on soci... ... middle of paper ... ...essentialism". The Journal of Philosophy 65.
Gender has nothing to do with your sexual organ which is your sex, your chromosomes, and your sexual preference which is your sexual orientation. As you can see even in the definition society appears to play and important role already. Gender is who you are as a person; it’s how you express yourself that is your gender identity. People who don’t know their gender identity trouble finding their gender identity have what is called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not the only one, there is body dysphoria .and Gender, sex, and sexual orientation are not connected at all, all three are all separate.
Irigaray suggests the possibility of tracing sexual difference in philosophical accounts of personal identity. By 'tracing' I mean to follow the marks left by that which is no longer present to that which is never entirely spoken, i.e. sexual difference. I argue that Irigaray makes possible moving beyond the aporia of the Other which lies at the heart of Ricoeur's account of self-identity in Oneself as Another. This aporia is a self-engendered paradox which, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, Ricoeur is not able to go beyond: he cannot name the Other/other (whether l'Autre as a general category for the Other or l'autrui as a term for another person).
Sartre and the Rationalization of Human Sexuality ABSTRACT: Sartre rationalizes sexuality much like Plato. Rationalization here refers to the way Sartre tries to facilitate explanation by changing the terms of the discussion from sexual to nonsexual concepts. As a philosophy which, above all, highlights those features of human existence which seem most resistant to explanation, one would expect existentialism to highlight sexuality as a category that is crucial for considering human existence. Descartes comes immediately to mind when one focuses on Sartre's major categories. In Sartre's case however, it is not mind and matter but consciousness and its opposite: "nothingness" and "being."
Sexual normality implies the innate amalgamation of one’s sexual drive, or libido, with a predetermined sexual goal, i.e., copulation. This ossified concept of normality produces a fragmentary view of sexual theory. Therefore, normality is not necessary or sufficient for sexuality; human sexuality is individual, not universal. An innate association of sexual drive with a specific sexual goal is incompatible with a comprehensive examination of human sexuality. As mentioned above, sexual normality is ossified.