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. In …show more content…
He uses the limitation of ancient vocabulary to make his most critical point in his argument. He uses pederasty as an example of this; these were clearly homosexual encounters and were not referred to as so only because there was not a word for it. He uses the analogy that the word gravity was created by Newton, but existed before that time, it was just known by a different name, “The Latin gravitas, which is common in Roma literature, describes the very properties of matter Newton called ‘gravity’” (Boswell, 8). While this does function to get his point across, that pederasty is really just a primitive form of the word homosexual, it’s a weak analogy. Humans are complex and the divide between what is socially constructed and was is free from our influences is blurry. Sexuality falls into this blurred category, while gravity is very much above our …show more content…
As for the actual acts involved in pederasty, Boswell assumes that a sexual act is directly linked to sexuality. While that may work in many cases in history, there are exceptions. Think about the ruling classes in Europe, it was their duty to marry and produce an heir; they may not have wanted to but society expects it of them. I’m sure that there has been more than one man throughout history that has married and procreated despite being attracted exclusively to the same sex as themselves. Would we consider these individuals to be straight? I would say no, despite these acts they commit they are still very much so homosexual.
The last point I will discuss is Boswells interpretation of ancient text, specifically, the myth of the Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium. He claims that, “Its manifest and stated purpose is to explain why humans are divided into groups of predominantly homosexual and heterosexual interest. It is strongly implied that these interests are both exclusive and innate” (Boswell, 12). This acts as evidence to support his claim that regardless of there not being a proper term for homosexuality in ancient Greece, it was observed and used to classify society into the two collections of people based on
At the beginning of the 1900s, there was a “sexual revolution” in New York City. During this time, sexual acts and desires were not hidden, but instead they were openl...
Sexuality means many different things to different people, especially sexuality of a homosexual nature. Everyone has their own personal ideologies about sexuality, many of which have been forced on us by mainstream society's portrayal of what of is right or wrong. Bersani's objective is to take these societal sexual idiosyncrasies and turn them upside down to reveal how he feels gay male sex should be. In Bersani's article, Is the Rectum a Grave?, he entertains ideas of the self, sexuality (especially homosexuality), and power. Bersani believes that abolishing the self opens many options sexually and psychologically. He rejects conventional ideologies pertaining to sexuality like gender, identity and inequality but proposes new ways of thinking about sex and ones sexual identity by showing the reader new and unusual ways of viewing homosexuality and sexuality in general.
He does go on to suggest that those who are sections of androgynes are “adulterers” “adulteresses” (191 d-e), but this can only show the rather bizarre belief that sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex does not constitute adultery.
The topic of homosexuality has always been one approached with caution due to its taboo nature derived from its deviation from the heterosexual norm. Traditionally, and across several cultures, homosexuality has been successfully discussed through normalizing the behaviour through heterosexual representation. Gender reversal or amplification of feminine qualities of male characters have often been means by which authors are able to subtly introduce the foreign idea of homosexuality and equate it to its more formal and accepted counterpart, heterosexuality. The works of Shakespeare and Li Yu have assisted in exposing homosexual relationships while still maintaining them under the heterosexual norm, whether it be through direct or metaphorical representations.
For a modern audience, Oscar Wilde represents a quintessential example of homosexuality, especially among notable historical figures. However, this audience may not realize how much influence Wilde had over popular conceptions of homosexuality; in fact, many believe that Wilde’s trial in fact represented the birth of the popular homosexual image. If critics like Alan Sinfield and David Halperin are to be believed, the Wilde trials served as the crucible for the concept of the male homosexual. As the many nineteenth-century models of male sexuality came under trial, the rhetoric of Queensberry’s defense in Wilde’s first trial was critical in the convergence of these models to
His theory as to why homosexuality is abnormal (because of humans misusing their body parts) may propose a weak argument at first; however he supports this aspect of his argument by giving an example unrelated to human sexuality. His example involves the use of our teeth, although we may not realize it, those who do not have teeth usually don’t enjoy consuming all of their food through a straw.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Since the dawn of man, sex has played a crucial role in society. Before they learned to read or write humans were engaging in sex and without it none of us would be here. In today’s society, sex has grown to become much more complicated. If I were to ask a group of people on the street what they believed sex was? I bet they would have a hard time answering. The question puzzling society today is how do we define sex? Can we define sex? These are questions raised in Tracy Steele’s article “Doing it: The Social Construction of S-E-X”. This article is about the current questions and issues that have been raised about sex within today’s society. In this paper I will summarize the key points of the article, while sharing my own thoughts and opinions of Steele’s findings.
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.
Halperin, David. "Is There a History of Sexuality?." The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry
In the article “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality” the authors, Patrick Gray and Linda Wolfe speak about how societies look at human sexuality. The core concept of anthology is the idea of culture, the systems of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors people acquire as a member of society. The authors give an in depth analysis on how human sexuality is looked at in all different situations.
These three articles give the modern reader a sense of what sexuality was in Ancient Rome. These articles reinforce that sexuality is important in human societies. They show that how you did or did not do sexual activity was very important and under scrutiny like in Western societies today. Though these articles are using limited resources to make conclusions, they do their best to help the reader make sense of sexual Roman society.
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.
Leisure’s article provides us with examples that deter the word natural to its various definitions when referring to homosexuality, and why they were inconsistent. He provides various examples to emphasize that homosexuality is not unnatural, and in this case we were “enable to find a meaning for unnatural that enables us to arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural or that if homosexuality is unnatural, it is therefore wrongful behavior”.