- sexual essentialism
- sex negativity
- the fallacy of misplaced scale
- the hierarchical valuation of sex acts
- the domino theory of sexual peril
- the lack of a concept of benign sexual variation
She concludes by addressing the changes and "metamorphosis" of sexuality across time and culture.
The short of the requirements of a radical theory on sexuality is that it must 1) describe sexuality in the context of society and history, and 2) "convey the barbarity of sexual persecution", as Rubin states eloquently. At the heart of the refusal to meet the aforementioned requirements is sexual essentialism, which is propagated by fields like medicine and psychology that state that sex is something biological or innate to the human condition, something that is unchanging and without context. After sexual essentialism is sex negativity, or sexual taboo, increasing in magnitude as you move down the hierarchy of sex acts. After offering the theory of sex in social context, Rubin gives examples of sexual change and variation across time and space, these examples being the non-homosexual New Guinea mean who engages in homosexual acts and the not-gay nobleman executed for sodomy.
There are quite a few things I'd like to address in response to the Rubin reading.
First is the pyramid of acceptable sexuality that was established, as well as the flow chart shown (Figure 2, 282). I would like to focus on the bottom of the pyramid, the transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers, and cross-generational erotics. First and foremost, I was concerned with the ambiguity of "those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries" (279). Upon reading that, I thought to myself, "Both cougars and pedophiles can be included under that umbrella." What was even more concerning was that Rubin said cross-generational erotics were the "lowliest of all," below even the fetishists and prostitutes and sadomasochists. To me, it didn't make sense for silver foxes to be lower on the sexual food chain than prostitutes. Pedophiles, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be the "lowliest of all." Of course, if that is the case, that brings up the ethicality of including pedophiles with queer folks, which is something that already happens in society (i.e., the equivalence of "gay man" and "child molester"). What are your thoughts? Do you think Rubin is putting pedophiles and queer folks in the same sphere? What are your thoughts on the continued inclusion of bestiality/incest/pedophilia with queerness? Expanding on that, do you agree with Rubin's pyramid? What would you change about it and what would you keep?
Something else I'd like to address if the vilification of sexual minorities as mentally ill. As Rubin mentioned, the DSM-III was the most recent DSM at the time of writing. Homosexuality was included as a diagnosis in the DSM-II and was only changed to "sexual orientation disturbance" in 1974 with the seventh printing of the DSM-II, effectively making the DSM-III the first edition where homosexuality was not directly a mental illness. What do you think about the compounding stigma against sexual minorities (like gay/lesbian individuals)? Any reflects on the extant stigma against mental illness today vs. the decreasing stigma against gay/lesbian individuals?
Finally, what are your thoughts on Rubin's position that, like the "ethnic" homosexuality of the "New Guinea bachelor", modern homosexuality is analogous to an ethnic group? Do you think this is an appropriate comparison, that homosexuality has gained "much of the institutional structure of an ethnic group" (286)?
In answer to the first question, I believe that Rubin's figure 2 accurately represents how Western Society categories sexual acts. Most media when presenting sexualized bodies is presenting white, cis, married, hetero couples. Recently, we've been "gifted" examples in mass media of those groups in the "major area of contest": Modern Family show-cases a long-term gay couple, The L Word has many "promiscuous" lesbians and bisexuals, and unmarried heterosexuals are in pretty much everything. I would say that the first two groups, the "good sex" and "major area of contest" all contain acts and groups of people that (assuming enthusiastic consent and balance of power between people) are 100% a-okay! Now, the last category CLEARLY has some that don't belong there. I'd hope that we can all agree that transgender people should not be vilified or treated as deviant for just existing, and people who have a preference for transgender people should not be shamed. People who "cross-dress" (the word transvestite is, to my understanding, considered a slur, especially when people equate transvestites with transgender people, so I'll say cross-dressing instead) are also not deviant, although, as we discussed in class, cross-dressing and drag can be problematic. So, in my opinion, all those are totally fine between consenting partners. My problem is (and what I think Rubin is trying to point out by showing how this is how society views these groups) when consenting acts are lumped in with "strange" acts. Pedophilia and bestiality are clear examples of rape (children cannot consent and neither can animals) and are bad.
ReplyDeleteCross-generational relationships, fetishes, pornography, and BDSM are probably my greatest points of contention (and I'm sure my opinion won't be popular). Rubin argues that we should be dismantling this sex hierarchy, that "a democratic morality should judge sexual acts by the way partners treat one another...the presence or absence of coercion, and the quantity and quality of pleasures they provide." So, for some people, the above groups (BDSM, porn, etc.) are fine as long as the acts are consensual, that WHATEVER happens, between consenting adults, behind closed doors is a-okay! But I disagree. I am critical of, in particular, BDSM, kink, and porn because these industries perpetuate violence against women and teach everyone who watches to equate violence and sex.
Okay first I'd like to address to the pedophelia concern: I think in reading this perhaps approach it from a logical standpoint of socio-moral determinations put on sexuality vs. lived reality of those who experience it (our ethical concerns are in fact important but they are a posteriori). Morality is relative, constructed, and socially determined (that is not to say unimportant. So perhaps go into this with that attitude.
DeleteSecond and in response to this: sex industry can be seen as problematic from the standpoint of abject capitalism's work on people's bodies. On these anti-capitalistic grounds I concur but not in opposition in and of itself. Additionally, I would like to point out in your statement of the inherent violence these things place on women (not to diminish this reality) that you are in fact ignoring the entire queer reality of it and are just as guilty as anyone else in doing so, however you are doing so on this quasi-liberal moral high ground.
I think we should recognize that BDSM and kink practices are standard parts of people’s normal sexual practices and understandings of their own identities. Taking this violent/pervert ideology further outsides those who are outsided on illogical bases to begin with.
And again, to your concern of woman (important, but some straight woman want kink or BDSM, it is decidedly NOT abuse nor perpetuating it) what about queer individuals engaging in these practices with partners of the same or similar gender to them? I think this fact alone points to the fallaciousness of the argument and the ability to queer these sexual practices. Please be conscious that queer people exist.
I know it may be confusing but BDSM is not rape culture (when consensual, even if there is simulated non-consent, and it is not abuse, even when there is simulated abuse, or when it is violent). It is a part of people's sexual identities, much as man-on-man physical acts may be part of somebody else's (and socially difficult just the same).
It is not your responsibility to problemetize somebody’s sexuality. It is the very same logic that hyper-sexualizes and problemetizes all sorts of same-gender loving people around the world, and it is a mindset of anti-inclusion.
"Please be conscious that queer people exist" Well, considering I'm queer that isn't a problem.
DeleteMy question and concern boils down to this: why do people (straight or queer) enjoy being hurt in a sexual context? I'd argue that people don't have innate likes or dislikes when it comes to sexual "fetishes" (what kind of sex they like), so if it is not innate I'd argue it is cultured. That violence against women and sexualized violence against women is so normalized that people begin to believe that it is okay.
I'm not trying to kink shame anybody, but maybe ask them to reflect on why they feel aroused by violence and if that is okay and how their choices reflect what they have been taught by society.
I think the issues have both raised are very important and interesting. I know there has been a lot of movement in the past few years to make kink and BDSM more accepted. There is even a Tufts Kink group on campus that is trying to promote acceptance of kink as a type of sexuality.
DeleteIn regards to BDSM there are obvious questions of violence, fear, and the difficulty of maintaining and re-obtaining consent throughout a sexual act, but these are questions that should arise in regards to all sexual practices. I think most people would agree that as long as both parties are consenting and desirous of BDSM practices it is not pertinent what an outsider would think or how they would rank it in terms of the hierarchy of sexualities. In fact I would like to call into question, (as Rubin does) the whole concept of this hierarchy. It is very easy for us to laud ourselves for being accepting of some "non-normative" sexualities while still being prejudiced against others. But we must keep in mind that so many sexualities and sexual practices now considered quotidian were once branded as abhorrent and perverted. It is a difficult task, but we must consider what we are taught is perverted about these sexualities and desires, and why we are taught it is perverted, and by whom.
"I'd argue that people don't have innate likes or dislikes when it comes to sexual "fetishes" (what kind of sex they like), so if it is not innate I'd argue it is cultured."
DeleteRegarding Eliza's statement, I disagree about the idea that the kind of sex people like is only cultured. As with most things, I think nature and nurture are both at play here. Different things elicit different emotional responses in everyone, partially because of how they have been cultured, but also because of their innate traits. I don't think sexual arousal is any different.
I'd like to address your third set of questions, as I found Rubin's assertion that homosexuality is now in many ways analogous to an ethnic group fascinating. I can certainly see how Rubin draws parallels between the two- with the ever increasing acceptance of homosexuality in society, homosexual people become more and more visible, enabling connections between people and the creation of communities, especially in major metropolitan areas (Rubin mentions New York, Chicago, and San Francisco as examples). "Communities" of homosexual people can be as simple as a small friend group or as elaborate as the gay "culture" of a place like San Francisco, where there are businesses operated by and targeted specifically to gay people, and where a specific political culture develops based on the views held by gay citizens and voters. Homosexuality as community can affect religion, politics, society, and business much in the way an ethnic group as community can.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel there are also issues with equating homosexuality to an ethnic group, due to the vast differences present in the gay community. Gay people share no overarching racial, national, or ethnic identity, and presuming that they do perpetuates the harmful societal assumption that all gay people think and act the same, or hold the same values about the same things. Additionally, recognizing difference in the gay community is incredibly important in recognizing privilege within different members of the community. Though I suppose, in hindsight, that the same critiques could be made of society's views towards different ethnic groups- one cannot presume definite political, social, or moral views based on ethnicity any more than one can based on sexuality.
One element to consider with Rubin's article is the time in which it was written. I believe it was published in 1984. In the past 30 years, our society's attitudes toward many of the sexualities discussed has changed, specifically toward homosexuality, bisexuality, sex outside of marriage, and even prostitution. While sex negativity is still a very real issue, there is generally more acceptance today than in 1984. The change in views toward prostitution is particularly interesting to me. Over the past decades, awareness of the dire situation most sexual workers find themselves in has increased. Issues of human trafficking and sexual slavery are much more widely-known. Furthermore, queer individuals are viewed more favorably now, and while problems still obviously persist, 30 years has changed opinions. It is important to consider this when discussing this article and answering these questions, as it effects parts of Rubin's arguments.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how "cross-generational" sex was considered to be most vilified. I understand that certainly it's not the norm, but I wouldn't think it actually being vilified?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I think so is that I myself am in a cross-generational relationship. I am 20 and my boyfriend is 46. Of course this is seen as weird and unnatural by most people, and I often feel uncomfortable when I'm put in a position where I need to talk about it, but I've never thought of it as "vilified" . Of course because we're gay we don't really feel safe holding hands in public, but same-sex couples who are same age do have some level of 'normalcy' (not necessarily tolerance or respect of course) attached to them, I guess that sense of normalcy isn't extended to people that differ from something that is clearly "oh they're just like us but gay."
So I guess I just don't understand what he meant.
Cross generational sex is most problematic when the people in a relationship are at different "mental ages". In those situations, one can be taken advantage of for their naivete or lack of self-awareness and experience. Large age differences in adults often get the side-eye, but it becomes criminal when one of the participants in the relationship is considered a child or teenager.
DeleteI found the idea that silver foxes are less objectionable to society to be interesting. Perhaps it is linked to the idea that women lack sexual autonomy so a silver fox is more something amusing than alarming
Just as Christopher mentioned, I, too, found it interesting that "cross-generational" sex was considered as one of the worst on the bad sex line. Unless I was careless with reading Rubin's work, I am not sure if there was ever a place where they directly addressed the issue of "cross-generational" relationships and/or sex. Perhaps it is because these relationships are not as commonly publicized that it may be easy for them to be categorized under the umbrella of "bad sex" acts, people, and relationships. I also think it is interesting that monogamy is deemed extremely important, even necessary, under the "good sex" category. Yet long-term, stable homosexual couples are not considered under the "good sex" category due to their sexual orientation. The logic is twisted, yo. Plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteI love this article and appreciate it for probably being very accurate and relevant in the time when it was written, but as we mentioned in class, some things could use some updating. Like the Domino theory of sexual peril. I think that many things that used to be taboo are now normalized and that grouping things like homosexual relationships in with unmarried heterosexual relationships doesn't really work for 2014. We have progressed a lot quicker as far as accepting sex between unmarried straight couples.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that, like Zuri, I can't help but appreciate this article for its historical value. If anything, it can be seen as a baseline for just how far we've come as a society in just thirty years. Yes, that seems like a long time to wait for acceptance, but in relative terms it's also a great accomplishment.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second question, I think the difference between mental illnesses and homosexuality re: stigmas lies with the fact that socially, we are changing. Our generation in particular is not only exposed to open homosexuality but a concept of sexual fluidity as well; we are working to both educate and accept ourselves, and are generally much more open-minded in regards to these topics. On the contrary, our exposure to mental illness consists primarily of medical diagnoses – we learn about the what and the how, but not how those illnesses are integrated into human beings. In a sense, I would say that we detach ourselves more from these issues than those of homosexuality, and so the stigma persists.
Finally, for your third question, I have to agree with Micaela: I find the comparison of homosexuality to an ethnic group to be fascinating, but personally regard it as more of a community with one (very different and individualized) common denominator that brings them together in empathy as opposed to a group tied by ethnicity.