5 Assignment 05

One assumption in Western culture that many people possess is that sex is corruption for the youth (Rubin, 1984). Aspects of sex are normal and they are experienced by mostly everyone in the world. This fear of sex constructs a new and negative attitude towards it. At a young age children should feel comfortable, know about their body, and in some cases, explore it on their own. However, when the government labeled sex as corruption for the youth many parents did not ask questions and assumed that anything they proposed would “save” their children. Once a bold statement such as sex is corruption for the youth is made, many people especially in politics do not want to discuss it further. It is interpreted as a threat that must be eliminated. Anyone who opposes their methods has been corrupted. The criminalization of sex hurts the youth. Criminalizing sex causes the youth to think of their body as a harmful weapon and it does not allow them to explore all aspects of their sexuality.

Another assumption shared by many as stated in Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality by Gayle Rubin is that any sexual orientation or alternative sexual practice that is not deemed “natural” is wrong (Rubin, 1984). Many citizens followed religion. Citizens adopted ideologies on who should engage in sexual intercourse, for what purposes, and how they should engage in it. The ideologies proposed by the bible caused the government to issue laws that prohibited same sex relationships and greatly limited a variety of sexual practices like oral stimulation and sadism & masochism (S/M). This assumption limited the political discussion of sex and harmed the groups who were criminalized by it. Radical theory was prevalent here. Laws were created to ban people from possessing freedom over their sexuality and sexual desires. In regards to this assumption, politics aimed to have its citizens deal with sex in a uniform way because it was “normal” and this is the way it was supposed to be done. Political discussion on the topic was limited because many believed that the law was preserving a sacred practice so understanding the different desires of others was not up for deliberation.

The last assumption in Rubin’s essay is the graphic representation of sex (Rubin, 1984). Media and society both in the past and present times have represented sex in various ways. Society had placed a great emphasis on sex for procreative purposes and love making for heterosexual couples joined in matrimony. However, the media represented sex in a graphic and different way. Media achieved this by displaying sex as a practice that can be used by anyone wanting to act on their desires in various forms. Society viewed the medias interpretation of sex as vulgar and aiming to influence its “abnormal” sexual practices on others. This caused the creation of numerous laws that prohibited or placed restraints on the graphic representation of sex and pornography. Many citizens began to imply as method to combat pornography that these graphic images and practices of sex could lead to the crime of rape (Rubin, 1984). This assumption again limited its political discussion. This graphic representation of sex goes against societies views on what it should be used for so why should they discuss it?

The three assumptions of sexuality in Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality by Gayle S. Rubin are sex is corruption for the youth, any sexual orientation or alternative sexual practice that is not deemed “natural” is wrong, and the graphic representation of sex. These assumptions have resulted in the limited discussion of sex in a political setting. The assumptions formulate a certain ideology about sex that is believed to be common knowledge that should and must be followed by everyone. In my opinion, these beliefs about sex have caused the topic to be viewed as a fragile practice that needs to be heavily supervised by the government to prohibit the possible corruption of it. These notions are believed to be correct and factual which significantly limits the political discussion of it because the government believes it is right and why should they listen to others who possess the “wrong” beliefs about it. Unfortunately, the heavy political involvement in sexuality has led to injustice. The only way this injustice can be corrected is if the Western cultures begin to view sexuality as a personal freedom.

Rubin, G. S. (1984). Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of

Sexuality. 143-178.

The concept of sexuality in the United States is one that is controversial and difficult to understand. According to Rubin, the topic of sexuality consists of its own internal politics and forms of oppression. She believes that sex is always political, as it is a product of human activity and is in conflict with political influence. Rubin begins her argument by discussing the social movements occurring in England and the US during the nineteenth century that fought to condone chastity, eradicate prostitution, and prevent masturbation, especially in the young. Beginning at an early stage, the initial intent was to avoid the exploitation and free practice of sexuality. Ultimately, it was seen as something that was limited solely to reproduction, but was excused by marriage, love, and sometimes, a long-term relationship. Rubin continues to discuss how masturbation was considered unhealthy and would hinder the health and maturation of a child. It was deemed that an early interest in sex and sexual excitement would not allow for proper growth. In an attempt to protect the young, parents would tie their children down at night to prevent them from touching themselves. Eventually, this idea that sex is generally harmful to the young has slowly become embedded into people’s minds, affecting social and legal structures and keeping minors separated from sexual understanding and experience.

With time, sex laws began to move into full effect, as the 1950s shed new light on homosexuality. Evidently, this concept did not sit well with societal norms, as it led to the creation and fear of the title “sex offender” and the term “homosexual menace”. Initially, the term sex offender pertained to rapists and child molesters, yet with time, it linked entirely to homosexuality. Soon enough, the war on homosexuals began, where witch hunts and purges ran ramped. Police force became prominent as bars were raided and streets were swept, in a violent attempt to run out the gay community. Arrests became more and more frequent, as police arrested over 400 people in parks, streets, and other forms of local gay nightlife. This resulted in “queer bashing”, which discriminated against homosexuals in violent and forceful ways. The forceful negativity is only the tip of the iceberg on the concept of sexuality. Situations that are anything out of the societal norm result in dangerous backlash, as it stirs up the learned ideals of society that individuals have become used to. Rubin makes this clear in many instances, such as the development of laws against these ‘abnormal’ situations. One in particular is the Family Protection Act, which essentially, aims to attack feminism, homosexuals, non-traditional families, and the sexual privacy of teens. This act is not expected to be passed but the fact that an act such as this one has made its way into the minds of others is quite unsettling. Ultimately, the acceptance of differing forms of sexuality is difficult in a society that has already developed its pre-meditated perspective on what is right and what is wrong. Rubin sheds light on these concerns in this piece, as she believes that without any dramatic change anytime soon, we should be expecting much more of the same.

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.

The discussion of sex in the United States if often very limited; it focuses on only straight couples, most of which are both white and probably married or in a romantic relationship. Western society tends to ignore the topics of homosexuality, casual sex, sex outside of marriage, sex for pleasure, and this inhibits the ability for sex theory to develop. This issue is deep-rooted in the history of the United States, with laws that criminalize sexual acts and feelings. Dating back to 1873 with the Comstock Act, pornographic or obscene material was banned along with contraceptive drugs. This implies that sex is not made for pleasure but for procreation, and that having natural feelings of sexual desire is immoral. Throughout the years, the age of consent as been raised; in 1885, it was raised from 13 to 16, and now varies state to state but is typically around 17 to 18. This law brings the implication that children cannot be aware of sex or engaging in sexual acts, and criminalizes consensual sexual acts between two minors. In my opinion, this law is not all bad because it prevents young children from rape and sexual assault, but it is unnecessary for it to be a crime for two consenting 16 year olds to have sex. This relates to the movement of the rising use of the term “sex offender” in the 1950’s. This term was often aimed at the LGBTQ+ community, but also cracked down on people who possessed child pornography. I also do not see this as a bad thing because child pornography is completely wrong, but this law did ban historical and art pieces that contained naked children which were not sexual at all. There is a common implication in the United States that nudity is equivalent to sexuality, when in fact people use nudity as a form of art and the naked body is not inherently sexual. The criminalization of human sexuality continues when homosexuals were increasingly targeted in the mid to late 1950’s. Homosexuals were associated with communists, were considered mentally ill, and were used as a scapegoat. Many Americans placed their frustration with the state of the country at the time on the gay community, which led to many police raids of gay bars and areas and increased queerbashing. Many of these issues still exist today. Often sexual acts are considered only okay in a monogamous relationship or marriage, and women are often called degrading names for enjoying sex. Although homosexuality is more accepted, there is still a stigma surrounding it. People believe that lesbian sex is not real because there is no penis involved, and that gay sex is unnatural and immoral. These issues were created out of tension with societal problems, and have still not been solved. Sex theory will not develop until these issues are solved in our society.

Due Monday, March 6th, by midnight. Word count: 300 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. Absolutely no quotes should be used. If you paraphrase from the text (from Rubin’s work or anywhere else), you must be sure to include the proper citation (either MLA or APA).

In her essay, “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. She notes that “[t]hese assumptions are so pervasive in Western culture that they are rarely questioned. Thus they tend to reappear in different political contexts, acquiring new rhetorical expressions but reproducing certain axioms” (9). In your own words, explain these assumptions and how they limit political discourse on sexuality in the United States.