å Monday, March 6th, 2017

In her essay “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”, Gayle Rubin describes multiple axioms about sexuality and explains how they relate to sexual political discourse throughout the course of history. She initiates this explanation with the axiom of “sexual essentialism”. This is the theory that describes sex as individualistic, biologically natural, and unchanging despite any societal and historical deviation. This ideology was accepted and left unchallenged until the 1970s by Walkowitz and Foucault. Rubin basically argues that there cannot be political analysis on sexuality if it was merely understood as biological. Rubin explains further, “once sex is understood in terms of social analysis and historical understanding, a more realistic politics of sex becomes possible” (150).

Rubin continues with five more axioms, including sex negativity, the fallacy of misplaced scale, the hierarchal valuation of sex acts, the domino theory of sexual peril, and the lack of a concept of benign sexual variation – the most prominent being sexual negativity. According to Weeks, “Western cultures generally consider sex to be a dangerous, destructive, negative force” (1981, 22). The basis for this negativity stems from the Christian Bible, which explicitly teaches that sex is only appropriate in heterosexual marital relationships for procreation purposes. Any other form of sex is considered sinful, especially homosexuality and pleasurable sexual activity outside of wedlock. This ideology is consistent with some current political views about sex: that it is only acceptable in society when practiced in monogamous, loving relationships.

Sexual hierarchy enables oppression within all modes of society, including family life, the work place, housing, religious organizations, the military and even the government. Failure to continuously revisit these ideas over time as society changes will make it impossible to develop a radical theory about sex. “Sex is always political”, Rubin states. It’s systems of power need to be challenged as new sexual movements arise. If left unchallenged, individuals will continue to be mistreated and scrutinized for their modes of sexuality and erotic conduct.

In “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” Gayle Rubin argues that several persistent features of thought about sex inhibit the development of a radical theory of sex. The five assumptions that she discusses are: “sex negativity, the fallacy of misplaced scale, the hierarchical valuation of sex acts, the domino theory of sexual peril, and the lack of a concept of benign sexual variation” (Rubin, 150). Rubin begins her analysis by speaking on how the negative assumptions attached to sex can have such concerning outcomes. Religion was one of the first reasons as to why sex was looked down upon. Christianity placed a big emphasis on only participating in sex within a heterosexual marriage only to procreate, and nothing more. Any sexual acts done outside of marriage was considered disgraceful, except in very specific, special cases. But Rubin argues that this negative outlook on sex lurked into other aspects of people’s lives. People who were considered “not-normal” were seen as criminals under the law or mentally ill to doctors. As a result, there becomes a hierarchy scale where one sex act or preference is placed above or below another; leading to one group seeming better than the other. Certain sex acts are placed in “good” or “bad” categories which many use to judge the morals of others. Many argue over different places on “where to draw the line” of what is considered acceptable and what is considered inappropriate. These notions limit progress because many do not see a valid reason to discuss sex in any setting because they believe the majority of sex is considered corrupt. But sex is very situational, personal, and emotional. It is hard to place people in categories, place labels, and create laws that must apply to the masses when every situation and every person is unique.

Gayle Rubin, in her essay “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” highlights the critical assumptions about sex that have hindered the growth of a radicalized theory of sex.

According to Figure 9.1, “good” and “normal” sexuality “should ideally be heterosexual, marital, monogamous, reproductive, and non-commercial” (10)  Any sexuality outside of those criterions are deemed to be “bad” and “unnatural,” supported by false assumptions that homosexuality and prostitution symbolize a dangerous, immoral society.

Homosexuals have been one of the main scapegoats regarding “unnatural” sex.  The homosexual was deemed a ‘menace’ around World War II, and soon after, state and federal legislatures passed laws that authorized employers to discriminate against their employees based on their sexual orientation.  This job discrimination, based on the assumption that homosexuals were a threat to the community, discouraged countless homosexuals to pursue their field of work, and limited them to low-status, low-income occupations.

Sex-workers too, were portrayed as a threat to “health and safety, women and children, national security, or civilization itself” (21).  The sexual behavior of prostitutes was recognized as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, which implied they were not as emotionally and mentally capable due to their sexual behaviors and orientation.  Sex-workers were therefore vulnerable to irrational persecution by law-enforcement, especially during times of intense moral panic.

Even if it lacked harm, acts including masturbation, prostitution, homosexuality, and pornography were taboo and therefore deemed a threat to society in the United States.  These assumptions were ultimately counterproductive and limited political discourse on sexuality by promoting standards which ostracized and penalized those who did not identify with the heterosexual or monogamous agenda.  The oppression and condemnation of sexual diversity thus hindered the possibility to learn about and respect “abnormal” sexual preferences, and discouraged the possibility for growth of those deemed the “sexual deviants” of society.

I think the assumption that Gayle Rubin argues in “Thinking Sex” is that sex is a taboo topic in society depending on the time and place you are in. Sex can also be a sin depending on other peoples ethnics and religion.

Sex is usually a taboo topic in society because of how awkward it can be when talking about it. The reason to this is probably because the government passed so much laws trying to protect kids from it that it became a norm to not say anything in public to harm anyone else. Also according to Rubin, sex laws was derived from the bible, which to some people is very important because to them god created everyone and that he is always right. So when there is a gay couple or lesbian couple, people who believe in god or religious get kind of angry (depending on the person) at those couples for breaking the sayings of the god. Later on Rubin mentions how sodomy is illegal even in your own home (secret private life) because the government doesn’t allow this. This was a breach of privacy because gay/lesbian couple would be arrested just for having sex with one another, which is taboo.

Sex is a sin because according to Rubin s/he uses a diagram that shows what is good and what is bad. The good is usually when your faithful to someone (your married and have someone you love) and this allows you to be compatibility and build a future together with that person (having sex to produce offspring). On the other hand the bad is when you aren’t faithful to someone and instead you use sex as a way to work for money or for pleasurable purposes or etc…

Sex limits the political discourse on sexuality in the United States because of how the government has to try to define the norm that is right/wrong to follow. Since there is also a lot of people in the government with different views, religion, opinion, and etc… It gets a bit harder for the government to come to an agreement on something. However the world is moving forward and changing because Obama passed the rights for lesbians and gays to get married, which allows them to get the rights that regular couples get.

In Gayle Rubin’s essay, “Thinking Sex: Notes from a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”, the political discourse on sexuality is the main focus of Rubin’s work. In society, the main revolving issue around sexuality is the assumptions determined by civilization because of the identified sex at birth. The absence of bold conversation on the topic of sexuality incites fear in society and when people who are sexually liberated and choose to express themselves, it is seen as something abnormal. The idea of masturbation, abortion, and pornographic literature and art were seen as negative actions to be taken by people and assumptions set by western culture of who women and men are supposed to sexually desire placed a limit on the political discourse on sexuality. Throughout history society has not been specifically kind to members of the homosexual community and this institutionalized stigma against homosexuals is still carried by members of society today and has continued “Queer Bashing” which during the time period from 1940s to 1981 has done more damage than good; attacking gay bars, deeming the name “sex offender’ as an acceptable nicknames for gay people, and arresting them on the sole basis of whom they choose to love. What I found most interesting was Rubin’s hierarchy of sexual activity, the system places heterosexuals at the top allowing them the ability to advance in society meanwhile people with disabilities or abnormalities suffer at the bottom of the pyramid with no type of plan to be able to advance following homosexual people as well. Sexuality has it’s own politics that work behind the scene which are ever-more present now that it is becoming socially acceptable to be homosexual and it is even legal in countries across the globe but, because it’s legal doesn’t mean there isn’t limitations to these new laws.

In Rubin’s, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” she observes the notion of sex in Western culture. Rubin believes that sex is heavily viewed and practiced politically, rather than our natural property. Sex is only accepted in society in terms of marriage, love, or reproduction. And sex on any other terms is considered to be taboo, most especially if it involves homosexuals. Things like fetishes, sex toys, porn, and almost anything else in the context of sex, is presumed to be bad and unnatural. However the only unnatural part of this all really, is for western culture to even determine whether or not the act of sex is good or bad. It attaches sex with morality, when sex is just a natural expression, that we cannot always control, just like our hunger. Rubin mentions that our choice of diet is like our choice of sexuality. But, yet sexuality is viewed differently from other parts of our body. Western culture has idealized sexual behavior, and conforms people to their standards of “moral” sex.

Simply being a homosexual was considered to be a sexual offense. It places your entire character to be  good or bad just because of your sexual preference. And today, we can still see the same things going on. We are constantly under this pressure, when sex should be allowed, how, who, where, etc. Sex has become such a political system that it robs sex from its natural state. Our sex lives have socially become more of a burden. And this extends western culture’s power of judgement to say what is moral and immoral. How far is this supposed to go? There are limitations on how much relativism can go on in a culture. It is threatening our birthrights. Sexual oppression has been evident historically, and still is today.

In Rubin’s work, she discussed six distinct thoughts of sex that were perceived by western culture. One of the most significant assumptions was the concept of sexual essentialism. The idea behind this concept was that sex was believed to be unchanging, primarily biological in a sense that it was just a natural urge. It denounces the belief that sexual behavior can be influenced by outside forces, such as social influences, other than sex being used to procreate. This led to the rise of sexual negativity, which viewed sex as a harmful and sinful behavior if done outside of marriage or done for the pleasure of it. Another significant assumption that Rubin presented was the idea of a hierarchical system of sexual values. This system ranked sexual acts based on the normalcy of the act in society’s standards. At the highest of the system, being labeled as the most normal kind of sexual act, is the monogamous heterosexual couple. Other sexual behaviors, such as masturbation and monogamous gay/lesbian relationships were at the lower part of the system. At the bottom of this hierarchy, behaviors deemed as out of the norm and were looked down upon were transsexuals, prostitutes, fetishists, etc.

The various assumptions in this work represented how closeminded society is in regards to the topic of sex. Any type of sexual behavior, besides from being in a monogamous heterosexual relationship, is deemed as sinful and therefore creates a stigma for any behaviors other than the “normal” kind. This becomes more of an issue when the stigma is then turned into acts of hate and violence within society, which had been afflicted toward the gay community during the mid-1900s, in which they were attacked and arrested for their sexual behavior. The lack of understanding for the different sexual behaviors creates an imagined fear within society that people feel that they need to “correct” simply because they do not understand.

The radical theory of sex contains many different ideas and restrictions on the concept of sex.  These theories run deep within history and appear mostly in the United States and England.  The act of premarital/underage sex is something that is so forbidden that people are even advised not to touch themselves because of precautions for their health when they’re older.  Parents even tie their children up before they put them to bed in order to prevent them from touching themselves.  Any form of “sex per se” was a sensitive topic and many laws were made in order to perpetuate any form of sexual contact, whether it was physical or visual.  It even got to the point where some nude pictures were not allowed to be in textbooks because it violated their laws of nudity.  At that point it wasn’t sure what was appropriate or not.  The customs and norm of the sexuality culture in the past were deemed as normal and because of that, it shaped the laws, which is why why nobody really questioned it, however now sexuality is coming more and more out of their boundaries and not everyone is agreeing with the laws and customs in the past.

From reading this article we can clearly see the hierarchies embedded in our systems of sexuality.  Of course heterosexual couples were seen as the norm.  Police and media waged war on homosexuals throughout the 1950s. Many gay communities were raided.  This was all normal to people because gays weren’t accepted ever.  Even with all the commotion, the enforcements of the existing laws of prostitution has been restricted even more.  Some states have been passing new and tighter regulations on commercial sex.

A big issue today is the defunding of planned parenthood. This was probably enforced in order to prevent abortions, however planned parenthood doesn’t cover people for abortion.  It is to manage the birth control/contraceptives.  This type of regulation is similar to back in the days, however for different reasons. Back in the, people were trying to refrain young girls from having sex.  Now it is a sense of not supporting abortions.  Same situation, different reasons. 

These customs and norms are a perfect example that shows how people can be influenced by society and who they grow up with.  In my family, for example, it is not a question that people are supposed to wait until marriage to sex. It’s not a law in where my parents grew up, but generation after generation they were taught that and try to teach their kids the same.

Gayle Rubin’s essay, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” presents her argument that several persistent features of thought about sex inhibit the development of a radical theory of sex (Bullock). She observes many assumptions in the western culture to prove her point further and to show how they end up limiting political discourse on sexuality in the United States. During the late nineteenth century, the United States and England had a period where sexuality, in some ways, was renegotiated. Powerful social movements were against prostitution and masturbation, especially amongst the young, and encouraged chastity. On top of that, morality crusaders targeted public dancing, music halls, birth control information, abortion, nude paintings,  etc. Unfortunately, the consequences of these “moral paroxysms” still profoundly influence society, such as leaving deep imprints on people’s thoughts on sex, sex law, medical practice, child-bearing, etc (143-144). In result of all of this, masturbation is still seen as an unhealthy practice with myths that it could affect the health and maturation of a child, lead to insanity, or be a hindrance to growth. Although the horrific techniques to keep young ones from masturbation have been left behind, there are still social and legal structures which do not allow for minors to gain sexual knowledge or experience (144). Not only was prostitution and masturbation being targeted during this era [especially just before and after World War II], with laws being passed against such things, but soon the focus started to shift to “homosexual menace” or the code ‘sex offenders’ [but also including rapists and child molesters]. Once the public began to “worry”, an epidemic of sexual psychopath laws were passed through state legislatures, giving more police powers to psychological professions over homosexuals and other sexual deviants (145). Homosexuals and other erotic communities were persecuted and became objects of witch hunts and purges, with the help of executive orders, congressional investigations, and media exposures supported by the government. More than thousands had lost their jobs due to this, and till this day there are still restrictions on federal employment of homosexuals (145). Such anti-homosexual movements are the most documented examples of sexual suppression and erotic repression from the late nineteenth century which sadly still affects how society thinks today.

The assumptions based on sex and sexuality have only expanded since the publishing of Rubin’s work. From my experience the biggest issue we still face as a society is the idea that sexual liberation is for the benefit of heterosexual men. This theory is a constant battle and many men and women who consider themselves progressive struggle to overcome the stigma. Heterosexual men who identify as liberal continue to place judgements on women who express sexuality freely, whether deeming them “not worth the chase” or expecting the woman to prove her loyalty before beginning a monogamous relationship. Additionally, many of these same men who consider themselves open minded do not often mix with gay men, either as friends or support gay businesses, as if to say that love is love if you keep it to yourself.

I would suggest that this heterosexual male perspective is typical of Western culture and rarely unchallenged since wild women and gay men are often deemed as untrustworthy, not deserving of protection and characterized as aggressors when unsupervised. Many women and gay men are underpaid, often living in unsafe neighborhoods and with little access to health care. Community health centers are consistently at risk for harassment, lost leases or loss of government funding when states find the communities too unsavory for public money. Furthermore, sex laws that demonize violent sex crimes in the same manner as consensual sex acts suggest that the acts of consent are the same as any sex act imposed without consent. This perpetuates a hierarchy that sexual delinquents, rapists and child molesters, are the same as monogamous homosexual couples or promiscuous adults, like vegetables and fruits on a food pyramid. These ideas make discussions about human rights issues impossible because anyone who fits into a sexually deviant category, whether with or without consent, is not viewed as human in the consciousness of society.