This could relate as well to how sexual acts are perceived. Notice the common theme of deviance throughout the two excerpts. As described before, Alfred Kinsey, a well-regarded sex researcher of the 20th century, researched the borders between normalcy and deviance, noting that deviance is a societal construct that was used to control sexuality. Researcher Gayle Rubin even constructed a sex hierarchy, a charmed circle consisting of good, normal and natural sexuality versus that of what is seen as deviant, bad, unnatural and damned, naming things such as BDSM, homosexuality, and non-marital sex and so on. Though, it can be argued that these hierarchies aren’t obscene in any means but rather dependent on the individual to label as they see such. This means she shows me more explicit messages between her and some guys, playfully teasing that I should write more messages like those to my boyfriend to liven up our sex life, and so on. She had no quarrels about being abrupt with her sexuality in the welcoming presence of her friends. Yet, if this were in the era of when Kinsey was conducting research, or even yet in Rubin’s constituency, Friend A would have been considered deviant given that she feels free to please herself sexually and be expressive about it. Yet, there is a limit to her candidness that isn’t derived from deviance but rather who she is in terms of ethnicity. She explained to me her quarrels of hooking up with two This brings up Greta Christina’s article, “Are We Having Sex Now or What?” (Christina 2014) the author questions what really counts as sex as her sexual partners sexes changed. Friend A thought similarly to her, thinking that just penile-vaginal sex counted as the “real thing.” Although Friend A didn’t have female partners to have this ideology, she didn’t regard as other forms of sex, such as oral, orgasm inducing and electronic sex as sex. This delves into the common theme and into the thesis of how the idea of sex is individual as well as structural in the inkling that society and cultural norms, starting from the inner mechanisms of say one’s family and then branching out as to how others perceive these norms is how the ideology of sexuality is born. As a straight CIS woman of Hispanic decent, Friend A understood how others perceived her but also had a perception of herself because she doesn’t have to think about other forms of sex since she is content in just one form. It’s a blissful unawareness of
well-known stereotype. Sexuality is described in two different environments, showing how circumstances can change what is socially accepted.
For example, “sociological and popular understanding of gay and lesbian relationships has been greatly distorted by the false presumption that only heterosexual relationships are normal ways of expressing sexual intimacy and love” (Andersen 1997, 95). This explains how society helps in influencing and identifying people sexual identities throughout their lifetime. Andersen admits that “heterosexual identity includes the belief that men have an overpowering sex drive and that women are considered more loving, soft and are link to sex [… and] contemporary sexual attitudes are shaped by phallocentric thinking-that which sees men as powerful and women as weak” (Andersen 1997, 94, 96). Although, society is lead to believe that men should be the dominant figure of the family. The reality is that, in gay and lesbian relationships, no one individual displays the behavior of an authoritative
The sexual connotation here is important because of it's relation to the Freudian ideas of sexual repression and self-inhibition. To understand self-inhibition and why anyone would desire oppression is to understand fascism in the first place. Why does fascism exist? Why would any person or group of persons support an authority-figure set on dominating them and others as well as targeting a specific group of outsiders to the point of mass theft and genocide? The answer comes down to the fundamental basis and errors of human
Sexuality is often looked down upon by mainstream society. Embedded into culture and tradition, sex itself has been made to be seen as a taboo of sorts. Prostitution was made illegal; pornography was made evil. Rooted deep within the teachings of the most common religious morality systems, sex and sexuality is often paired with punishments. Those who explore their sexuality is often shamed, and labeled with words that can ostracize such persons from society. Kant’s view of sexuality almost destroys his credibility as a philosopher by providing unclear and unreasonable points of sexuality and objectification, yet he remains keen on trying to prove that sex, outside of marriage, is the worst possible sin. However, there are those who believe that expressing sexuality is power, and is exercising autonomy. Many existentialists see sexuality as a means of self-expression, and to not be comfortable with sexuality shows that the person inhabits the morality of the sheep.
"Sexual identity is fundamentally elitist," says Sartre. Cultural theory states that the collective is impossible. It
Despite that we often think of sex and sexuality as going hand in hand in today’s society, if we look back in history we see a major distinction in many cultures. It is obvious that there has always been sex, otherwise I wouldn’t be here writing this paper, but sexuality is another matter. I interpret sexuality to be a distinct preference for some sexual act with a specific partner(s) free of outside pressure. In some places and periods of history this distinction was a component of a sexual behavior, others not so much, and sometimes it’s unclear. Take for example the arguments made in David Halperin’s “Sex before Sexuality” and John Boswell’s “Revolutions, Universals, and Sexual Categories” regarding the sexual nature of pederasty.
Unlike sex, the history of sexuality is dependant upon society and limited by its language in order to be defined and understood.
Looking at our past, there have been dramatic changes in the way humans view sex. Long before the 1900s individuals framed their views based on the religious institution. Due to the fact that they strongly centered their idea of sexual thought on religion, they believed that the only purpose of having sex was to procreate. As the 1920’s approached, there were various factors that changed the way individuals viewed sex. The “new women” known, as flappers were women who were confident in who they were. They changed their attire as well as their social attitude. In the 1920s, the flappers redefined sex; customs and traditions were broken and new norms were created by society.
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
There are many discussions as to what constitutes perverse and what is considered acceptable sex. In Nagel’s Sexual Perversion, Nagel depicts sexual perversion as being any activity that a person may think or do to satisfy their perverse sexual desires. Nagel believes that normal sex is only sex that happens between married couples for the purpose of reproduction. In Nagel’s inspection of what is considered normal and abnormal sex, Nagel introduces his situations where sex would be depicted as unnatural. First, fetishes with objects will be abnormal while plain sex will not. Secondly, Sexual desire is a form of sexual perversion. Lastly, any sexual desire that is psychological and not physical is considered abnormal. To define what normal
As Tamsin Wilton explains in her piece, “Which One’s the Man? The Heterosexualisation of Lesbian Sex,” society has fronted that heterosexuality, or desire for the opposite sex, is the norm. However, the reason behind why this is the case is left out. Rather, Wilton claims that “heterosexual desire is [an] eroticised power difference [because] heterosexual desire originates in the power relationship between men and women” (161). This social struggle for power forces the majority of individuals into male-female based relationships because most women are unable to overcome the oppressive cycle society has led them into. Whereas heterosexual relationships are made up of the male (the oppressor) and the female (the victim who is unable to fight against the oppressor), homosexual relationships involve two or more individuals that have been freed from their oppressor-oppressed roles.
Stein, Edward. The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1999. Print. 20 Oct. 2011
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
... decades ago. This book is one that will allow the reader to view many aspects of sexuality from a social standpoint, and apply it to certain social attitudes in our society today, these attitudes can range from the acceptance of lesbian and gays, and the common sight of sex before marriage and women equality. The new era of sexuality has taken a definite "transformation" as Giddens puts it, and as a society we are living in the world of change in which we must adapt, by accepting our society as a changing society, and not be naive and think all the rules of sexuality from our parents time our still in existence now.