I want to begin this article by asking my readers- Have you thought about sex? The answer would be a ‘yes’. But this ‘yes’ remains within the confines of our mind as we are too scared to even admit to having sexual curiosity/thoughts.
Gayle Rubin’s article Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality critically discusses how political campaigns in the US and UK during the 1900s spread a scary idea of sexuality. They urged parents to adopt cruel practices to “protect their children” from any form of sexual release and managed to pass specific laws to refrain from any form of public expression of sexual behaviour. These laws included the criminalisation of homosexuality, sex work, pornography, etc. This was also the time in the 1970s when large scale propaganda was carried out in American/Canadian cities to detain any person suspected to be gay or involved with anyone who is a homosexual or a sex worker. Bars, local pubs were raided frequently, and the right-wing politicians used this to gather votes from the supposedly ‘scared’ homophobic citizens.
While discussing various ideologies that developed around sexual behaviour over time, Rubin strongly emphasises five ideological formations: 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. The belief system that generates ‘sex negativity’ advocates that sex is sinful and anyone who commits it is sinister. People who believe in this culture consider sexual behaviour ous for society, something that t “Sex is presumed guilty until proven innocent.” The only path to prove innocence is marriage and procreation. Rubins calls this the fallacy of misplaced scale as a corollary of sex-negativity.
The dark lens of viewing sexual behaviour as destructive takes a documented form when legal laws are passed against it. These laws are as strict as laws against any criminal offence such as murder would be, and if found guilty, individuals would be subject to punishment.
Throughout much of Europe and American history, a single act of consensual anal penetration was grounds for execution. Although people can be intolerant, silly, or pushy about what constitutes proper diet, differences in menu rarely provoke the kinds of rage, anxiety, and sheer terror that routinely accompany differences in erotic taste.
This, in my opinion, is also quite hypocritical. If erotic behaviours of people affect a certain section of society to the extent that they feel threatened, then ideally, they should not pay any heed to this issue at all.
The third ideological formation proves that as a society, we love the concept of stratification. The hierarchical valuation of sexual acts stratifies humans on a verticle scale, with the highest being the most socially acceptable human being. Rubin calls this the ‘erotic pyramid’ with married heterosexual couples on the top, followed by unmarried heterosexual couples and other heterosexual beings. While they occupy the higher ranks of the erotic pyramid, the bottom ranks are occupied by homosexual couples who have been together for a long time; below them are single lesbians and promiscuous gay men or what people often termed them as ‘sex offenders’. The lowest position is given to anybody else who doesn’t fall under the above categories.
The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models and lowest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.
The last two ideological theories, the domino theory of sexual peril and lack of benign sexual variation, discuss the judgement made by society as to what is morally correct and what is incorrect. It throws light on what is considered to be ‘good sex’ and ‘bad sex’. Rubin also points out how difficult it is for people to accept sexual variation. Like following rules in an organisation or wearing a uniform in school, sexual behaviour is also expected to be expressed similarly. Any other way or form will not be accepted.
These ideas had ripple effects in other parts of the globe. Even today, after more than seventy years, the general public worldwide is shy of speaking openly about sex and is still majorly homophobic. They fear people who have openly declared themselves homosexuals and do not want their kids to be around such people. It is commonly believed that homosexuality is like a communicable disease that gets passed on to anyone who gets in contact. Powerful social forces such as the governments, political leaders, religious leaders, Nobel laureates, who regulate the norms of the society, need to propagate the fact that sexuality is not just a biological phenomenon. Since these people have the social standing to influence the masses, they can utilise their power to educate their audiences and change. For example, Nobel peace prize winner Barack Hussein Obama II fought for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community upon getting elected as the President of the United States of America. He was not only able to repeal the US military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which consequently allowed gay men and women to serve openly (CNN Wire Staff 2010), but he was also successful in legalising same-sex marriages in 2015 by convincing the supreme court (Reilly 2013).
A person might realise at a certain point in life that they are bi-sexual or homosexual; the sexual orientations of individuals can change over time depending upon their experiences, exposure and psychological pre-dispositions. If we continue looking at sexual behaviour as a pure biological construct, we voluntarily ignore the human emotional aspect attached to a person’s sexuality. As Rubin writes,
Sexuality is as much a human product as are diets, methods of transportation, systems of etiquette, forms of labour. Once sex is understood in terms of social analysis and historical understanding, a more realistic politics of sex becomes possible.
Rubin, in this article, elaborates upon the universal stigmatisation of sexual behaviour and the complexities attached to it. She emphasises how sexuality has always been in the realms of conflict in our history and will continue to remain there if we don’t develop a broader perspective around it. The article opens a way to many more thought-provoking discussions around sexual behaviour and its complexities that we as a society might have been too shy to initiate.
My own thoughts completely align with Rubin’s, as I believe that humans have desperately tried to prove over the years that any form of public or private expression of erotic desire is unrighteous. Many powerful tools have been used to justify this ideology, the strongest of all being religion. As soon as we attach the words ‘sinful’ and ‘immoral’ to anything, an automatic fear gets generated within our subconscious mind. Any amount of logical reasoning won’t be enough to convince us otherwise. Many powerful social forces have used this exact method to present variation in sexual behaviour, in sexual orientation as a sin that everyone is scared to commit. Even thinking about it is prohibited as one instantly starts feeling ashamed and guilty.
The broader perspective, in this case, could be one where we, for once, stop putting any labels and stop classifying people. Such classifications become the origin of prejudices as anyone who belongs to a different category is viewed as ‘them’/‘they’. How is one supposed to relate to a person if we have already accepted that they are different from us and don’t belong together? Therefore, we need to look beyond these small boxes of categories and labels attached to a person, beyond the various roles played by a person throughout the day, beyond their sexual orientation; and connect with the individual as a human entity.
References:
Rubin, Gayle (2006); “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of Politics of Sexuality”; Culture, Society and Sexuality, edited by Peter Aggleton and Richard Parker, Routledge, pp. 267-312, Print.
CNN Wire Staff. (2010, December 27). Obama signs repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/22/dadt.repeal/index.html
Reilly, R. J. (2013, February 28). Obama Administration: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional In Prop. 8 Supreme Court Case | HuffPost Latest News. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-gay-marriage_n_2783912
***
Shviti Tagore is an aspiring PhD candidate in Sociology. She has completed her masters in Sociology from Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi.