Gender Studies 220: Essay B
The way that an individual views sex is largely reliant on the culture and society in
which they were born and raised. What is considered as “common knowledge” regarding
reproduction, sexual crimes, and so much more often varies greatly from community to
community. Further, some might say that an individual’s views on sex can affect most
aspects of an individual’s beliefs and how they interact with others. How then, has
Western society’s sexual politics shaped our population views on sex and our
interpersonal relations?
Gayle Rubin’s most central argument in her text titled “Thinking Sex: Notes for a
Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” follows that the way sex is politicized in
present society implicitly defines morally right and wrong categories of sex.
Subsequently, the immorality of the persecution of groups who fall under the ‘morally
wrong’ category goes largely unnoticed. Rubin cites two main examples that illustrate
how society suppresses ‘sexual deviants’ through outdated ideologies masked in
progressive movements: recurring instances of moral panic and the attribution of sexual
deviance to mental illness.
Before analyzing modern society’s implicit sexual repression, we must examine
the ideologies behind it and how the same ideologies were present in the explicit sexual
repression of the past. One such ideology that Rubin identifies is ‘sex negativity’. Sex
negativity is rooted in the Western Christian dogma that sex is inherently evil and is only
acceptable when it is 1. performed within the bounds of marriage and 2. performed with
the intention of procreation. These bounds definitively exclude all forms of sexual
expression outside of heterosexual, monogamous, vanilla sex. Rubin writes “This culture
always treats sex with suspicion. It construes and judges almost any sexual practice in
terms of its worst possible expression. Sex is presumed guilty until proven innocent”
(Rubin 278). Religious beliefs are often timeless in a way that others are not. If a man
teaches his son that God says sex is bad, then that son will teach his son that sex is bad,
and that son will teach his son the same. As the cycle goes on, the idea that ‘sex is bad’
will become so imbedded in the family’s core belief system, that even if one son breaks
the cycle, the taboo that now surrounds sex will have a large effect on how he interacts
with it for the rest of his life.
Another notion on sex that has persisted through time is essentialism. In her 1998
piece titled “Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality” Carol
Vance defines essentialism as “a belief that human behavior is “natural”, predetermined
by genetic, biological, or physiological mechanisms and thus not subject to change; or the
notion that human behaviors which show some similarity in form are the same, an
expression of an underlying human drive or tendency” (Vance 160). Vance goes on to
explain how the essentialist approach to sexuality is considered the default in our society.
Modern science has established sex as binary and unchanging, and sexual orientation is
proclaimed as something one is simply “born with.” Anything outside of these
restrictions is labeled as an abnormality and ostracized accordingly. Previously, these
essentialist views were used as a way to argue against modes of sexual deviance, but
now, they’re used as a means of validation for them. For example, in the past one might
have argued against homosexuality by saying that everyone is born with a sexual
orientation, and that orientation is heterosexual. On the contrary, presently, one might
argue for homosexuality by saying that everyone is born with a sexual orientation, but
that orientation can be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, etc. While these arguments
are opposing in some aspects, they share a core essentialist framework. As a result, they
both cast aside the experiences of countless individuals whose sexual orientation does not
fit into the mold of “born this way.”
Now that we have examined the ideologies behind modern sexual repression, we
can look into the ways it has been carried out. The first example that Rubin uses is the
situations of moral panic that reoccur throughout history. As defined by Jeffery Weeks,
“Moral panics are the “political moment” of sex, in which diffuse attitudes are channeled
into political action and from there into social change” (Rubin 297). Rubin asserts that in
Western society the topic of sexuality is so taboo that even the wars waged on it are
directed at “phony targets.” During moral panics, some category of sexual deviants will
be targeted through an arbitrary social movement, the media will be put in a frenzy, and
legislation will often be enacted to protect some group of so-called victims—often
women and/or children— from the preconceived dangerous sexual deviants.
One recent occurrence of moral panic happened in Florida. According to PBS, a
law enacted by Governor Ron DeSantis barred Florida public school teachers from
including the topics of sexual orientation and gender identity—which notably hadn’t been
covered in the past anyways— from curricula in kindergarten to third grade. Critics of
this law, which has been coined the “Don’t Say Gay” law, have said that it not only
“others” teachers and students who identify with the LGBTQ+ community, but also that
the rhetoric behind the law implies that it is inappropriate for children to know about
sexual orientations besides heterosexuality. Consequently, this implies that it is
inappropriate for individuals who identify as something other than heterosexual to be
around children in the first place. Under the guise of protecting children, the “Don’t Say
Gay” law has effectively targeted the LGBTQ+ community, and pushed the harmful
narrative that being anything other than heterosexual is a perversion that youths should be
protected from.
The second way Rubin claims that sexuality is repressed is through modern
society’s association of sexual deviance with mental illness. As opposed to historical
counts where sexual deviants are viewed as sinful, now they are viewed as mentally
inferior. Rubin states that “Low status sex practices are vilified as mental diseases or
symptoms of defective personality integration. In addition, psychological terms conflate
difficulties of psycho-dynamic functioning with modes of erotic conduct…These
terminological muddles have become powerful stereotypes that are indiscriminately
applied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientations” (pg. 280). Take a
relationship involving sadomasochism for example. In a famous case regarding S/M, a
man was convicted of aggravated assault for his actions during a consensual
sadomasochism scene. When the man appealed his case, the court upheld its ruling
against him saying that one can’t consent to physical harm except in the case of sports.
Further the court noted that a normal person would not willingly receive bodily injury,
and as a result, a masochist is considered to not be in full “possession of his mental
faculties.” Therefore, any consent given by a masochist is considered null under the law.
According to Rubin, the politicization sex in modern Western society has gone
through a false progressive movement whilst holding on to the same discursive ideologies
of the past. As a result, the sexual persecution that inevitably occurs from those
discursive ideas, such as moral panics and questioning the mental wellbeing of sexual
deviants, are seen as necessary and therefore not repressive at all. In order to remedy this,
we as a society must first re-evaluate the way we think of sex in general. In the words of
Rubin “It is often easier to fall back on the notion of a natural libido subjected to
inhumane repression than to reformulate concepts of sexual injustice within a more
constructivist framework. But is essential that we do so” (Rubin 277).
Works Cited
Izaguirre, A., & Licon, A. G. (2022, August 15). 'don't say gay' law brings worry,
confusion to Florida schools. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/dontsay-gay-law-brings-worry-confusion-to-florida-schools
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking Sex: notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.
Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. pp. 267-319.
Vance, C. (1989). Social Construction Theory: Problems in the History of Sexuality.
Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality? pp.13-34