å Tuesday, March 7th, 2017

In Thinking Sex: Notes For a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, Gayle Rubin explains that in The United States many people see sexuality as immorality, corrupted and as a negative behavior. People were afraid of sex, which contributed to create many taboos and negative attitudes against sex. The sexual behavior is defined within the religious framework and social, all behavior out of it is considered as immoral or sinful. It is normal that at a young age we feel curiosity about our body and begin to know and explore it, but government categorized sex as dangerous and damaging, especially for youth, creating in the parents the idea that this measure would protect their children.

Another assumption is based on the Christian traditions. Sex is pardoned only between married couples and as long as it is done with love and with the intention of procreating. Enjoy this act is prohibited and it is considered a sin. Obviously homosexuality, fornication and premarital sex were prohibited. Having sexual attraction, masturbate or explore their body or sexuality was considered as a sinful behavior. There was a “radical theory of sex” where government created several laws in order to control people’s sexuality in every way.

Rubin used diagrams to illustrate some of her arguments. These diagrams explain the concrete divisions between what is allowed and what is condemned within sexual practice. As a result of this continuing sex negativity, groups that fall outside “the normal group” of sexuality are the most persecuted in society. I agree with Rubin when she points out that sex between two consenting individuals should be no concern of the government. There are many things that should be changed and it is important do not confuse the concepts of sex, gender, and sexuality. We have to be confortable with our sexuality and change some standards of what is good or wrong.

According to “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” Gayle Rubin contends that strict thought that people have about sex restrict the advancement of ideas and stereotypes on sex. Gayle Rubin showed us how United States and Western culture used laws to control people’s thoughts about sexuality. These assumptions on sexuality that made by laws looks like true opinions on sex so that people rarely make objections to these assumptions. As a result, these assumptions restricted people from developing their ideas of sex, and political discussion on sexuality.
In 1950s, United States made a major change in the group of sexuality from prostitution or masturbation to ‘homosexual menace’ and ‘sex offender’. The period was before and after WWII so that the sex offender became public fears. The term ‘sex offender’ sometimes stood for rapist, sometimes to ‘child molesters’, and lastly it functioned as a code for homosexuals. These change even affected in politics. From the last 6 years, United States and Canada went through huge sexual repression in political senses. For example, in 1977, news media unexpectedly reported on gay bars, arrests for prostitution, and investigation on productions and distribution of porno so that the police activity against gay community became severe.
I think people started to have stereotypes on LGBT from the past so that it became serious problems nowadays. For example, I was born in South Korea and lived there for 15 years, and thorough out 15 years, I didn’t even know the presence of LGBT until I read the comics about it. There were no educations about LGBT 5 years ago. Therefore, people treated people who are LGBT as ‘abnormal’ being so that there were mistreatments on them and even led some of them to death.

Abelove, Henry, Michèle Aina. Barale, and David M. Halperin. The Lesbian and gay studies reader. New York: Routledge, 1993. Print.

This article was very interesting to me, and explained many things which I have noticed, but didn’t fully understand their history.
It seems that the main assumption in this country in particular is that if you are not a married heterosexual couple who practice sex for reproductive reasons and never stray outside of “normal” then you are accepted as allowed to be a sexually active individual. If you fall into any other category then you are not fully accepted, but there is a hierarchy of how unacceptable you actually are.
I found it very interesting how she explains the theory that sex is not only biological, but it is also cultural and this makes a lot of sense to me. Growing up where I did, people are very open about sexuality and sexual orientation, etc. however, I grew up in a catholic family so sex has always had a sense of guilt behind it to the point that even talking about it can be uncomfortable. On one hand I am comfortable with other people and sex, but not as much when it comes to myself, and this seems to me very much connected to my background. I also find it interesting that even today we still have such a “hush-hush” mentality surrounding sex and sexuality. The fact that people still need to “be in the closet” seems insane being that the only reason our society considers heterosexuality normal is because we as a culture decided that was normal. There is nothing normal nor abnormal about any sexual orientation.
Going into education the censorship in sex education is something I am concerned with being that I am not willing to tell anyone that abstinence is the only option and I know that will get me into trouble in certain contexts and areas. What is so crazy about that idea is it clearly does not work, yet we keep using it.

In her essay, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” Gayle Rubin it is shown that sex is always active in politics, there have been conflicts, disputes, and debates on sexual values, and she believes that its always political. For example during the 19th century in the United States and England people were more aware of sexuality and its morals and it was viewed differently. There were campaigns on abstinence, masturbation was looked down upon, in bad health and the targeted group was young people because that’s who they aimed to protect from sexual excitement. Some theorists even believed it led to insanity, a stunted growth and impairment on the youth.

The Comstock Act that was passed in 1873 made it illegal to sell, make, promote information, books or pictures that are foul  for the basis of sexual arousal as well. Yet Rubin is trying to show in her article that sexuality as a whole should be appreciated and respected, and to be sexual is natural and apart of human activity in everyday life. In the 19th century parents went to the bizarre extreme to tie their children down at night so they wouldn’t be able to masturbate “protecting” them from having an interest in sex and during this time children weren’t able to be aware of their sexuality or experience it in anyway. Later on during the 1950’s, sexual offenders became the main focus, similar to this day they were associated with fear and they were a threat to public safety. Large investigations took place to capture sex offenders who may have been working for the government, which is very corrupt. Therefore many people did end up losing their jobs due to this, and rules were placed on these offenders and their future employment opportunities.

In Gayle Rubin’s, Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, she discusses the sexual assumptions that restrict the formation of a radical theory as well as how they limit political discourse in the US. One assumption is the idea of sexual essentialism: the idea that sex is a natural force that is independent of social life. Sex is also seen as a negative thing by default as well. Sex itself is seen as harmful and a sin Any sexual behavior is seen as bad or negative in almost all situations unless there is a specific reason to exclude it from that judgement. There is also a ‘hierarchy’ of sexual value in society in which straight, reproducing males are at the top and their sexual actions are rewarded and seen as positive. Whereas the people placed lower in the hierarchy, their sexual acts are viewed as horrible and negative and they are seen as criminals.

Rubin mentions certain events that occurred in Europe and the US around the nineteenth century. People organized movements against masturbation, birth control, prostitution, etc and this led to all of these topics being seen as taboo for many years to come, even to this day. Political discussion about sexuality is limited in that it can’t be discussed as long as it is thought of as a biological phenomenon. Also, as long as it is a biological idea and not a social idea, political discourse about sexuality is heavily limited since it can be seen as a “human product.”