What is Human Sexuality
Human Sexuality as an academic field studies the ways in which humans
express themselves as sexual beings. This epistemology is interdisciplinary in nature,
utilizing biology, medical research, sociology and psychology. The science of human
sexuality approaches understanding as multilayered. Pulling from these varying
disciplines, the field is able to look at sexuality from multiple lenses. While there are
many approaches to the study, its foundation lies in the heteronormative white male
perspective using a default sexual script that normalizes certain types of sexuality and
practices and pathologizes others. As exclusionary as its roots are, there is an ongoing
demand from scholars in the field and much has been written about the need to be
more expansive. Understanding Human Sexuality in its totality demands a wider lens.
Whether it was biology or medical research, or any of the other disciplines that fall
under the wide umbrella of an interdisciplinary approach to Human Sexuality, there is
a tendency towards an explanation of human sexuality in terms of a false binary that
informs the creation of knowledge in the field which is often scientifically inaccurate.
Repercussions of this result in varying levels of invalidation of lived experiences
of students in the field, to highly abusive practices in research and medicine.
Historically, the field of Human Sexuality in the United States has been chronically
underfunded due to the puritanical roots inherent in the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
(WASP) foundation. In particular, the study of female or non-binary bodied persons
and research findings, stated conclusions of “normal” sexual behavior, and best
practices about sexuality have often been determined with a white, misogynistic,
heteronormative lens. This is of concern for those who seek to advance the field
because any default sexual script inevitably alienates some people and potentially
have unwanted or un-consensual sexual experiences.
For this text we will be examining sexuality from an intersectional lens that can
be loosely termed biopsychosocial in that it systematically considers biological,
psychological, and social factors and their complex interactions. We will observe
biological aspects of our bodies and minds and see how that interacts with how we
experience our bodies and others we relate to sexually, and put in all in context with
culture. All of this will then be related to our specific ascribed or achieved aspects of
selves that make us who we are. The resulting objective of looking at sexuality in this
fashion is to remove specific sexual scripts or normalize certain things and pathologize
others. “Sexuality is a multidimensional, biopsychosocial, intersectional, fluid, ever-
changing set of reinforcing/resisting stories which enable and/or block the flow of
embodied feelings like desire and shame” (Barker & Scheele, 2021 p. 132). For our
purposes this text seeks to move the reader away from shame and towards pleasure.
I don’t know when I first knew that I would want to climb her but once I started, I
couldn’t stop. Running across the top of her foot I leapt up her leg and started the
ascent. The muscles of her strong calf offered support as I made my way around her
knee and up the inside of her thigh. Her skin became softer, easier to grip. I rested on
the fleshy ledge on the inside of her hip joint. Excitement building, I squeezed my
head, shoulders, torso, and finally legs and feet through the folds between her legs. It
was so dark, but I didn’t care. I knew where I was going. I’d been there before. I wiggled
my way along her smooth softness until I arrived. Full of grief and deep appreciation,
I laid where I had first found form. The walls of nurturing, feeding, keeping me sage
were there. I never wanted to leave. We were together then. Same body. Same blood.
No separation. I sobbed remembering the completeness. Knowing I could not stay. To
see her face meant letting go of our oneness. My belly button ached. I wanted to go
higher. Scaling internal organs, I got lost in the twists and turns of her guts. The path
was curvy. The pain of transformation meant discarding the rest.
Arriving in the stomach, with its crude methods of caring deeply, loving
completely, I felt perseverance. She takes it all in, breaks it down with the truth of
being. She knows the answers to the hardest questions. Down in her lungs I felt the
power of her breath and the fire of her heart. Huge. Bathing muscles in clean,
compassionate blood. I screamed. The vibration of my shrillness carried me up her
throat and onto her tongue. I laughed at her gorgeous teeth and pulled on her
succulent lips as I crawled over her nose. Kissing her eyelids and rubbing her brow, I
finally came to rest in the intoxicating smell of her hair. The precious gift of being held
washed over me. Maybe tomorrow I’ll climb up inside myself and admire the view? But
I won’t scream at the hugeness of my heart. I’ll gaze in the awe of a passionate path,
vast beauty and the honor of being seen. -Heidi McBride, April 1998.
Another problematic arena in the field of human sexuality has been well
documented examples of ethical violations that stem from both individual and
structural racism, dating back to the development of the field up until present day. We
begin with the case of enslaved woman, Sara Baartman. Today, she is seen by many
as the epitome of colonial exploitation and racism, of the ridicule and commodification
of Black bodies. Sarah Baartman was brought to Europe seemingly on false pretenses
by a British doctor, stage-named the "Hottentot Venus." She was paraded around
"freak shows" in London and Paris, with crowds invited to look at her large buttocks.
Baartman died on 29 December 1815, but her exhibition continued. Her brain, skeleton
and sexual organs remained on display in a Paris museum until 1974. Her remains
weren't repatriated and buried until 2002 (Parkinson, 2016). A 2018 exhibition featuring
a sculpture of Sarah Baartman at theUniversity of Cape Town, South Africa was
created to facilitate dialogue about heritage and contemporary life.
A second example is Dr. J. Marion Sims, who has been heralded as the father of
modern gynecology. It has long been asserted that Dr. Sims perfected the first
consistently successful operation for the cure of “vesicovaginal fistula (VVF), a
catastrophic complication of childbirth in which a hole develops between a woman's
bladder and her vagina and leads to constant, unremitting, and uncontrollable urinary
incontinence” (Wall, 2006). He did so by practicing on slave women without the use of
anesthesia, which clearly raises questions regarding Dr. Sim’s medical ethics and his
perceptions surrounding the human rights of enslaved persons. During Sim's tenure,
women suffered horribly from this condition and a race for the cure was critical. Dr
Sims' use of slave women was well documented historically. By the very nature of their
enslavement, these women were unable to consent. He performed surgery on them
as test cases, and then performed more surgeries later on some white women without
anesthesia. The use of anesthesia was new during this time, and anesthesia did not
become commonplace until he was routinely performing this procedure on white
women (Wall, 2006). He later described white women complaining of pain while
enslaved Black women did not, and used this anecdotal evidence to make
assumptions about differing pain thresholds based on race, rather than other possible
factors for their differing responses, such as enslaved women’s likely fear of
punishment for expressing said pain. Some argue it is not because Dr. Sims was racist,
but rather, that anesthesia was not widely used; however, whatever biases Simms had
about pain thresholds and racial identity allowed him to make assumptions about how
the women he worked on experienced the procedures.
There is much controversy surrounding the practices of Dr. Sims and the ethical
considerations factoring in despite the invention’s historical significance. A
vesicovaginal fistula (VVF), rendered women greatly incapacitated during the time Dr.
Sims was in practice. It was considered a fate worse than death for many. Prior to Dr.
Sims’s breakthrough, there had been no consistently effective procedure to repair the
fistula, and there was not a field of gynecology at the time; in fact, examining women’s
organs was considered repugnant by male doctors. From 1845-1849, Dr. Sims
performed experimental surgery on 7 enslaved Black women in his small backyard
hospital (Ojanuga, 1993). He performed his experimental surgery on his first patient
Lucy in front of 12 male doctors watching as she crouched on her hands and knees
and endured the hour long procedure without anesthesia. The surgery was a failure
and she almost died. Another patient, an enslaved woman named Anarcha endured
13 operations without anesthesia with limited success (Ojanuga, 1993). Dr. Sims
attempted his procedure on white women but as previously mentioned, found that they
could not endure the pain. In the minds of many who look at the history of this particular
doctor and his practices, Dr. Sims was not merely a product of his time but rather his
infliction of pain on Black women was unethical, cruel and callous.
Sadly, the pattern of white male doctors who callously practice unethical
procedures on women and people of color does not end with Dr. Simms. Well into the
21st century, forced sterilization of women in California correctional institutions was a
consistent practice (Jindia, 2020). A state audit and prison records reveal nearly 1,400
sterilizations between 1997 and 2013. In addition to people sterilized during labor, an
unknown number of ciswomen and trans people were sterilized during other
abdominal procedures (Jindia, 2020).
These sterilizations took place without consent or under coercive circumstances.
Despite ethical mandates and procedural efforts to make sure research participants
are protected, there remain recent examples of gross violations. As we take a look at
these, we often find that marginalized populations are the ones most at risk. There
seems to almost be permission to test on incarcerated people as if they are lab rats.
From high risk cancer treatments, to testing skin cream and cosmetics, they have been
used for non-consensual medical testing as if their human rights are not valid. These
forced sterilizations of incarcerated women in California prisons are the topic of the
2021 documentary, Belly Of The Beast | Documentary Film | Official Trailer. This film
highlights one of the ways in which the lives of incarcerated people are not their own,
and basic human rights to choice and autonomy of their bodies were grossly
disregarded. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution allows for involuntary servitude
as a punishment for crime as a means to take away any free will incarcerated people
have thus this is just another link in the chain of enslavement. But it is not just the
incarcerated who have their free will disregarded. Those institutionalized in mental
health facilities as well have been sterilized against their will. Many of these facilities
were shut down when then President Ronald Reagan gutted much of the mental health
services and facilities. While these facilities were not without problems, this forced
many who needed support out on their own, often ending up in prison as they were
incapable of getting what they needed to live independently. Facilities for the mentally
ill in many ways were like prisons in that those housed there were not treated
humanely. A recent expose highlighted the decades long practice of forced sterilization
and castration of men and women who were living in one of thesefacilities, the Sonoma
home, one of the many homes for the mentally ill/disabled that practiced this type of
forced medical intervention (Barber, 2021). The medical directors chose to undertake
these sterilizations based solely on their prejudiced attitudes towards the people
whose care they were charged with. The unfortunate truth is that white supremacy,
sexism and ableism were deeply entrenched in the mindsets of the medical community
that made these decisions without consent, and this influences the science and
decision making practices of the medical community to this day.
Just as the enslaved women could not consent, incarcerated and institutionalized
people face similar lack of rights, and are coerced via the threat of increased
sentences if they fail to comply with authority. The legacy of structural racism, sexism
and heteronormativity are part and parcel of the field of Human Sexuality. There is
much more to explore about the ways in which what is otherwise a rich field has to
reckon with its problematic past and present. Its value stretches far beyond the walls
of the academy and has real world consequences that affect all of humanity. A deeper
understanding of human sexuality will help us put all of this in context so let's now turn
our attention to understanding the field at large.
In the area of sexuality, sociologists focus their attention on sexual attitudes and
practices, not on physiology or anatomy. Sexuality is viewed as a person’s capacity
for sexual feelings. Studying sexual attitudes and practices is a particularly interesting
field of study, because sexual behavior is a cultural universal. Throughout time and
place, the vast majority of human beings have participated insexual relationships
(Broude 2003). Each society, however, interprets sexuality and sexual activity in
different ways. Many societies around the world have different attitudes about
premarital sex, the age of sexual consent, homosexuality, masturbation, and other
sexual behaviors that are not consistent with stated cultural norms (Widmer, Treas and
Newcomb 1998). At the same time, sociologists have learned that certain norms (like
disapproval of incest) are shared among most societies. Likewise, societies generally
have norms that reinforce their accepted social system of sexuality.
What is considered “normal” in terms of sexual behavior is based on the mores
and values of the society. Societies that value monogamy, for example, would likely
oppose extramarital sex. Individuals are socialized to sexual attitudes by their family,
education system, peers, media, and religion. Sexuality is not static, and cultural
influences shape all parts of human sexuality. The culture shapes how sex acts are
performed and perceived as normal or deviant, as well as what we find sexually
appealing. Historically, religion has been the greatest influence on sexual behavior in
most societies, but in more recent years, peers and the media have emerged as two
of the strongest influences, particularly with American teens (Potard, Courtois, and
Rusch 2008). Let us take a closer look at sexual attitudes in the United States and
around the world.
There are many reasons that an understanding of our sexuality is an important
part of our overall wellness, mental, physical and emotional. As students in a class
learning about sexuality, of course it is in part important so that you do well in the
course, but beyond the classroom, we are all humans with bodies and our sexuality is
encompassed as a part of this so to have some working knowledge of our own
sexuality increases our quality of life. Imagine having a new smartphone with all sorts
of features that you don’t know how to use. For most, we would take the time to learn
how to use those features. Our sexuality, learning about parts of our bodies, why we
find certain things appealing or unappealing, and how culture shapes these notions
will be valuable tools for you to possess.
Cross-national research on sexual attitudes in industrial nations reveals that
normative standards differ across the world. For example, several studies have shown
that Scandinavian students are more tolerant of premarital sex than U.S. students are
(Grose 2007). A study of 37 countries reported that non-Western societies—like China,
Iran, and India—valued chastity highly in a potential mate, while Western European
countries—such as France, the Netherlands, and Sweden—placed little value on prior
sexual experiences (Buss 1989).
Even among Western cultures, attitudes can differ. For example, according to a
33,590-person survey across 24 countries, 89 percent of Swedes responded that there
is nothing wrong with premarital sex, while only 42 percent of Irish responded this way.
From the same study, 93 percent of Filipinos responded that sex before age 16 is
always wrong or almost always wrong, while only 75 percent of Russians responded
this way (Widmer, Treas, and Newcomb 1998). Sexual attitudes can also vary within
a country. For instance, 45 percent of Spaniards responded that homosexuality is
always wrong, while 42 percent responded that it is never wrong; only 13 percent
responded somewhere in the middle (Widmer, Treas, and Newcomb 1998). Of
industrialized nations, Sweden is thought to be the most liberal when it comes to
attitudes about sex, including sexual practices and sexual openness. The country has
very few regulations on sexual images in the media, and sex education, which starts
around age six, and is a compulsory part of Swedish school curricula. Sweden’s
permissive approach to sex has helped the country avoid some of themajor social
problems associated with sex. For example, rates of teen pregnancy and sexually
transmitted disease are among the world’s lowest (Grose 2007). It would appear that
Sweden is a model for the benefits of sexual freedom and frankness. However,
implementing Swedish ideals and policies regarding sexuality in other, more politically
conservative, nations would likely be met with resistance.
As culture shapes our attitudes and beliefs, so does time and place. The following
two scenarios were observed by anthropologists over 50 years ago so we imagine
things look different presently. This following information is based on studies
undertaken in the 1960s and 1970s by Cultural Anthropologist John Cowan
Messenger and anthropologist Donald S. Marshall. Retrieved from
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cultural_differences_in_sexuality Inis Beag, a small
island off the coast of Ireland, is among the most naive and sexually repressive
societies in the world. The islands abhor nudity, with adults washing only the parts of
the body that extend beyond their clothing. Even marital partners keep underclothes
on during sexual activity. Premarital sex is essentially unknown, as is female orgasm.
The husband invariably initiates sex, foreplay is limited to kissing and rough fondling
of the buttocks, and the male-ontop position is the only position used. The male has
orgasm quickly and immediately falls asleep. Men believe that intercourse is hard on
their health and will not engage in sex the night before an energy-demanding task.
Moreover, they do not approach their wives sexually during menstruation or for months
after childbirth.
The island women fear both menstruation and menopause. It is commonly
believed that the latter can produce mental disorders. Thus, some women have retired
from life in their mid-forties and a few have even confined themselves to bed until
death years later. Sex education is virtually nonexistent. Parents merely trust that, after
marriage, nature will take its course. In sharp contrast, Mangaia, an island in the South
Pacific ocean, stands in sharp contrast to Inis Beag. Sex exists for both pleasure and
procreation and is a principal interest and activity.
The Mangaian boy hears of masturbation at about 7 and begins the practice at
age 8 or 9. At age 13, he undergoes the super incision ritual (a slit is made on the top
of the penis, along its entire length) and the expert who performs the surgery gives
him explicit sexual instruction. About two weeks after the operation, the boy has
intercourse with an experienced woman who provides him with practice in various acts
and positions. She specifically trains him in restraint so that he can have simultaneous
orgasms with his partner. The young girl receives similar expert instruction and will
typically have three or four successive boyfriends between the ages of 13 and 20.
Mangaian parents encourage their daughters to have sexual experiences with several
men so that they can find a marriage partner who is congenial. Boys aggressively seek
out girls, typically having coitus every night. The average boy may have ten or more
girlfriends before marriage. At around age 18, the Mangaians typically have sex most
nights of the week with about three orgasms per night. All women apparently learn to
experience orgasm. Bringing his partner to orgasm is one of the man’s primary sources
of pleasure. So as you can see from just this one example, attitudes about sexuality
vary greatly worldwide and the culture we live in provides us with a sexual script we
learn from a very young age. Individually we learn to follow or disregard these rules
based on various factors but in either case, we are shaped by cultural norms and
values.
The United States prides itself on being the “land of the free,” but it is rather
restrictive when it comes to its citizens’ general attitudes about sex compared to other
industrialized nations. In an international survey, 29 percent of Americans stated that
premarital sex is always wrong, while the average among the 24 countries surveyed
was 17 percent. Similar discrepancies were found in questions about the
condemnation of sex before the age of 16, extramarital sex, and homosexuality, with
American total disapproval of these each acts being 12, 13, and 11 percent higher,
respectively, than the study’s average (Widmer, Treas and Newcomb 1998).
American culture is particularly restrictive in its attitudes about sex when it comes
to female bodied individuals. Perceived expectations and rules around sexuality
fallalong gender lines, and while the U.S. often fails to consider gender beyond the
binary, when it comes to values and normative practices, the binary model always
disadvantages female gendered people when it comes to sexual freedom. It is widely
believed that male gendered people are more sexual than are female gendered ones.
In fact, there is a popular notion that male gendered people think about sex every
seven seconds. Research, however, suggests that male gendered people think about
sex an average of 19 times per day, compared to 10 times per day for female gendered
people (Fisher, Moore, and Pittenger 2011). Belief that male gendered people have—
or have the right to—more sexual urges than female gendered people creates a
double standard. Ira Reiss, a pioneer researcher in the field of sexual studies, defined
the double standard as prohibiting premarital sexual intercourse for female gendered
people but allowing it for male gendered people (Reiss 1960). This standard has
evolved into allowing female gendered people to engage in premarital sex only within
committed love relationships, but allowing male gendered people to engage in sexual
relationships with as many partners as they wish without condition (Milhausen and
Herold 1999). Due to this double standard, a female gendered person is likely to have
fewer sexual partners in their life time than a male gendered person. According to a
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, the average 35-year-old
female gendered person has had three opposite-sex sexual partners, while the
average 35-year-old male gendered person has had twice as many (Centers for
Disease Control 2011).
The future of a society’s sexual attitudes may be somewhat predicted by the
values and beliefs that a country’s youth expresses about sex and sexuality. Data from
the 2008 National Survey of Family Growth reveals that 64 percent of boys and
71percent of girls ages 15–19 said they “agree” or “strongly agree” that “it’s okay for
an unmarried female to have a child.” In a separate survey, 65 percent of teens stated
that they “strongly agreed” or “somewhat agreed” that although waiting until marriage
for sex is a nice idea, it’s not realistic (NBC News 2005). This does not mean that
today’s youth have given up traditional sexual values such as monogamy. Nearly all
college students (99%), regardless of gender who participated in a 2002 study on
sexual attitudes stated they wished to settle down with one mutually exclusive sexual
partner at some point in their lives, ideally within the next five years (Pedersen et al.
2002).
Comprehensive sex education should begin in early childhood, continue through
a lifespan and be developmentally appropriate. The programs should not only focus
on prevention of STI and unintended pregnancy, but also teach about forms of sexual
expression, healthy relationships, gender identity and sexual orientation,
communication, preventing sexual violence and consent.
California Department of Education: If schools provide comprehensive sex
education, what must it include? EC Section 51933. First drafted in 1976 and most
recently updated in 2015, requires that comprehensive sexual health education shall
be age appropriate; medically accurate and objective; available on an equal basis to
English language learners; appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual
orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds; and appropriate for and accessible
to pupils with disabilities. This education shall encourage students to communicate
with their parents or guardians about human sexuality and shall also teach respect for
marriage and committed relationships. It shall not teach or promote religious doctrine
nor reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected
by the non-discrimination policy codified in EC Section 220.
One of the biggest controversies regarding sexual attitudes is sexual education
in American classrooms. Unlike in Sweden, sex education is not required in all public
school curricula in the United States and can be "opted out of" if parents do not agree.
The heart of the controversy is not about whether sex education should be taught in
school (studies have shown that only seven percent of Americans oppose sex
education in schools), it is about the type of sex education that should be taught. Much
of the debate is over the issue of abstinence. In a 2005 survey, 15 percent of
Americans believed that schools should teach abstinence exclusively, and should not
provide contraceptives or information on how to obtain them. Forty-six percent
believed that schools should institute an abstinence-plus approach, which teaches
children that abstinence is best, but still gives information about protected sex. Thirty-
six percent believed that teaching about abstinence is not important and that sex
education should focus on sexual safety and responsibility (NPR 2010).
Research suggests that while government officials may still be debating about
the content of sexual education in public schools, the majority of Americans are not.
Those who advocated for abstinence-only programs may be the proverbial squeaky
wheel when it comes to this controversy, as they represent only 15 percent of parents.
Fifty-five percent of Americans feel that giving teens accurate information about sex,
including how to obtain and use protection will not encourage them to have sexual
relations earlier than they would under an abstinence program. Additionally, 77 percent
think such a curriculum would make teens more likely to practice safe sex now and in
the future (NPR 2004).
Sex Education in the United States can be hit or miss depending on the state or
school district in question. In the US, it often takes a one and done approach in which
it is offered to students somewhere in middle grades and then again in high school.
Whether abstinence based or not these offerings often involve the use of fear in order
to prevent young people from sexual exploration whether it be on their own bodies or
with a partner. Fear based programs do little to prevent unwanted teen pregnancy or
disease transmission, and instead result in shame around our bodies and finding
pleasure in them.
Wellness as a holistic endeavor needs to include our sexuality. Teaching students
to love all parts of their bodies and love feeling good is not taking place in most of the
school-based curriculum. Rather than making sex education an optional extra that
feels ultra cringe-worthy when presented by teachers who otherwise never cover this
type of information, another approach could be to offer sexual health education across
all grades using a developmental approach. Learning about all parts and functions of
our bodies, how to care for and protect them, and rejoicing in the wonderful pleasure
they can provide would be very empowering. Liberating sex education has the ability
to open minds and bodies for pleasurable exploration without stigma. U.S. youth would
benefit from this and can help them feel good about who they are and understand that
when it comes to sexual preferences, types, activities etc., there is no such thing as
normal.
Sweden, which has a comprehensive sex education program in its public schools
that educates participants about safe sex, can serve as a model for this approach. The
teenage birth rate in Sweden is 7 per 1,000 births, compared with 49 per 1,000 births
in the United States. Additionally, among 15- to 19-year-olds, reported casesof
gonorrhea in Sweden are nearly 600 times lower than in the United States (Grose
2007).
Sociologists representing all three major theoretical perspectives study the role
that sexuality plays in social life today. Scholars recognize that sexuality continues to
be an important and defining social location, and that the manner in which sexuality is
constructed has a significant effect on perceptions, interactions, and outcomes.
Structural Functionalism sees society as a structure with interrelated parts
designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society.
When it comes to sexuality, functionalists stress the importance of regulating sexual
behavior to ensure marital cohesion and family stability. Since functionalists identify
the family unit as the most integral component in society, they maintain a strict focus
on it at all times and argue in favor of social arrangements that promote and ensure
family preservation. Functionalists such as Talcott Parsons (1955) have long argued
that the regulation of sexual activity is an important function of the family. Social norms
surrounding family life have, traditionally, encouraged sexual activity within the family
unit (marriage) and have discouraged activity outside of it (premarital and extramarital
sex). From a functionalist point of view, the purpose of encouraging sexual activity in
the confines of marriage is to intensify the bond between spouses, and to ensure that
procreation occurs within a stable, legally recognized relationship. This structure gives
offspring the best possible chance for appropriate socialization and the provision of
basic resources.
From a functionalist standpoint, homosexuality cannot be promoted on a
largescale as an acceptable substitute for heterosexuality. If this occurred, procreation
would eventually cease. Thus, homosexuality, if occurring predominantly within the
population, is dysfunctional to society. This criticism does not take into account the
increasing legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, or the rise in gay and lesbian
couples who choose to bear and raise children through a variety of available
resources.
Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources between
those who have (bourgeoisie), and those who do not (proletariat). Karl Marx is
considered the founder of Conflict theory. From a conflict theory perspective, sexuality
is another area in which power differentials are present, and a space where dominant
groups actively work to promote and impose their worldview, as well as serve their
economic interests. Recently, we have seen the debate over the legalization of
marriage equality for all intensify nationwide, and in 2015 The Marriage Equality Act
became the law of the land, ensuring any two people wishing to enter into a marriage
contract could do so. In protest of this many states have adopted statutes or
constitutional provisions preventing same-sex marriage. One of these provisions, the
Defense of Marriage Act, states that marriage between one man and one woman is
the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized; however the national
law overrides these state policies. Unfortunately there have been many county officials
refusing to issue marriage licenses for samesex couples under violation of the federal
law but nonetheless impeding couples rights, forcing them to seek legal recourse or
go to another county. For conflict theorists, there are two key dimensions to the debate
over marriage equality—one ideological and the other economic. Dominant groups (in
this instance, heterosexuals) wish for their worldview—which embraces traditional
marriage and the nuclear family—to win out over what they see as the intrusion of a
secular, individually driven worldview. On the other hand, many marriage equality
activists argue that legal marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied based
on sexual orientation and that, historically, there already exists a precedent for
changes to marriage laws: the 1960s legalization of formerly forbidden interracial
marriages is one example.
From an economic perspective, activists in favor of marriage equality point out
that legal marriage brings with it certain entitlements, many of which are financial in
nature, like Social Security benefits and medical insurance (Solmonese 2008). Denial
of these benefits to same sex couples is wrong, they argue. Conflict theory suggests
that as long as heterosexuals and homosexuals struggle over these social and
financial resources, there will be some degree of conflict.
Symbolic Interactionism explores how we make meaning out of our interactions
with one another in everyday life and how the specific roles we play affect these
interactions. Interactionists may focus on the meanings associated with sexuality and
with sexual orientation. Since femininity is devalued in American society, those who
adopt such traits are subject to ridicule; this is especially true for male bodied people.
Just as masculinity is the symbolic norm, so too has heterosexuality come to signify
normalcy. Prior to 1973, the American Psychological Association (APA) defined
homosexuality as an abnormal or deviant disorder. Interactionist labeling theory
recognizes the impact this has made. Before 1973, the APA was powerful in shaping
social attitudes toward homosexuality by defining it as pathological. Today, the APA
cites no association between sexual orientation and psychopathology and sees
homosexuality as a normal aspect of human sexuality (APA 2008)
Interactionists are also interested in how discussions of homosexuals often focus
almost exclusively on the sex lives of gays and lesbians; homosexuals, especially
male bodied, may be assumed to be hypersexual and, in some cases, deviant.
Interactionism might also focus on the slurs used to describe homosexuals.
Derogatory labels are often used to demean homosexual men by feminizing them.
This subsequently affects how homosexuals perceive themselves. Recall Cooley’s
“looking-glass self,” which suggests that self develops as a result of one’s
interpretation and evaluation of the responses of others (Cooley 1902). Constant
exposure to derogatory labels, jokes, and pervasive homophobia would lead to a
negative self-image, or worse, self-hate. The CDC reports that homosexual youths
who experience high levels of social rejection are six times more likely to have high
levels of depression and eight times more likely to have attempted suicide (CDC 2011).
Read the following paragraph written in the United States in 1966:
In a collectivity (society) that has institutionalized military homosexuality, the
stubbornly heterosexual individual is a sure candidate for therapy, not only because
his sexual interests constitute an obvious threat to combat efficiency of his unit of
warrior lovers, but also because his deviance is psychologically subversive to the
others’ spontaneous virility. After all, some of them, perhaps “subconsciously”, might
be tempted to follow his example. On a more fundamental level, the deviant’s conduct
challenges the societal reality as such, putting in question its taken for granted
cognitive (“virile men by nature love one another”) and normative (“virile men should
love one another”) operating procedures (Berger and Luckmann, 1966).
What did you understand about what is written? Is this statement representative
of the reality of U.S. cultural values regarding sexuality? In 1966, Sociologists Peter L.
Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote Conceptual Machineries of Universe
Maintenance, A chapter in their book, The Social Construction of Reality. In this
chapter they were highlighting how social norms and values get affirmed through
shared meaning and when people stray from those norms two “Conceptual
Machineries” operate to keep people from deviating from these norms. This
understanding of society being socially constructed also known as a Social
Constructionist understanding is something we will learn more about in Chapter 7,
Bias and Discrimination in Human Sexuality. The authors flipped the norm and you
can imagine how their example could be the norm. When we think about social norms
around sexuality, there are very narrow sexual scripts we are conditioned to follow but
what we know is that these social constructions can change.
Queer Theory is a perspective that problematizes the manner in which we have
been taught to think about sexual orientation. By calling their discipline “queer,” these
scholars are rejecting the effects of labeling; instead, they embrace the word “queer”
and have reclaimed it for their own purposes. Queer theorists reject the
dichotomization of sexual orientations into two binary and mutually exclusive
outcomes, homosexual or heterosexual. Rather, the perspective highlights the need
for a more flexible and fluid conceptualization of sexuality—one that allows for change,
negotiation, and freedom. The current schema used to classify individuals as either
“heterosexual” or “homosexual” pits one orientation against the other. This mirrors
other oppressive schemas in our culture, especially those surrounding gender and
race (black versus white, male versus female).
Queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argued against American society’s
monolithic definition of sexuality—against its reduction to a single factor: the sex of
one’s desired partner.
In the end, queer theory strives to question the ways society perceives and
experiences sex, gender, and sexuality, opening the door to new scholarly
understanding.
