5 Assignment 05

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.”

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.