‘—

Assignment Five

While reading Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” I thought about my experience with Catholic school. I attended Catholic School (almost) my entire life, I remember in high school we were assigned a project on abortion that instructed us to argue the side of prolife and prochoice. The argument for prolife was that if you’re not prepared to have a child then you simply shouldn’t have sex. This argument is completely unrealistic and illogical, but in an environment that has directly and indirectly programed us to think that premarital sex (and sometimes just sex itself) is sinful and wrong – the argument makes perfect sense. This bias permeates the political realm as well and prevents us from having logical and rational conversations about important issues regarding sex.

When Rubin talks about the far right making a case in the late 1960s that SEICUS (the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) and proper sexual education would destroy the family and that similar practices and organizations would somehow tarnish morale and tamper with race relations. I think there is a huge problem with placing ideas of morality on sexual behavior. Sex is something that is natural and (arguably) the basis of existence (to reproduce and procreate – in a biological sense, the ability to reproduce determines the success of a species) and comes with risks that we must be prepared for. A refusal to educate people on sex can result in unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and psychological problems that can result from non-consensual sex or fear of judgement.

I think that Foucault’s “The History of Sexuality” gives a more accurate explanation of sex – as a natural libido trying to break free from social constraints. He says that new sexualities are constantly produced, arguing that social sexual practices are always evolving and always changing, which means society must be aware and conscious of those changes and the new identities that may emerge from such a progression.

The assumptions that sex is sinful, that premarital sex is wrong, that the only purpose of sex is to have children in an ideological family, and that the negative repercussions of sex are consequences of poor moral practices is extremely regressive and dangerous. The far right has used religion as a justification for a certain moral high ground that (they think) grants them the right to tell other people how they need to behave in their private lives. I find it ironic that these people feel a moral superiority and a moral obligation to better society with a no-sex agenda, but don’t think to extend that moral obligation to orphans, homeless people, underprivileged children, veterans, sick people without access to healthcare and so much more. It is indicative that this “moral standard” is not moral, but religious. Religion can serve as a base for one’s identity and it is difficult to change people’s minds when their opinion is tied to their identity. Although we have come a long way and have sexual education programs and access to sexual care, it is astonishing and troubling that we are still having arguments about Planned Parenthood and contraceptive care.