Analysis Of Sexual Revolution In Early America By Richard Godbeer

In Sexual Revolution in Early America, Richard Godbeer explores the shifting meaning of sex and sexual relations in Early America from 1600 to 1800. He finds that during the seventeenth-century there was an ongoing conflict between traditional concepts of “informal” marriage and a new ideological effort of colonial officials to regulate sexual behavior. He is careful to point out that the relationship between official and settler are not fixed, but rather fluid in nature. This nuance moves the narrative beyond a simple binary oppositional pattern, and provides for a detailed understanding of sex as an aspect of the shifting social order among early Anglo-Americans.
Godbeer begins his text with a discussion on traditional “informal” marriage

and proper moral marriage. He argues that the colonies featured large amounts of premarital sex; however, colonists did not find these actions wrong or illicit. Traditionally, he argues, settlers drew on early notions of marriage in England. One did not have to be publicly married by the church in order to be considered legally married. Men and women in the colonies carried on this tradition. In their minds there was nothing immoral or illegal about sex after engagement. This idea of marriage as something not necessarily public and ceremonial became the ideological target of colonial officials, as they sought sexual moral reform.
The first three chapters of Sexual Revolution thoroughly rework the image of puritanism. That is that puritanical notions of sex were not dominate in Early America, but instead, existed and opposed conflicting social sexual mores. This conflict over sexual morality existed between Puritan leaders and ordinary New Englanders, who may or not have been Puritans themselves. Godbeer argues, “The sexual agenda contained within Puritan ideology remained nonetheless quixotic: it demanded of colonists not only an extraordinary degree of self-control but also strict observance of a sexual and marital protocol that ran counter to longstanding popular traditions, including and especially the widespread condoning of premarital sex.”
Godbeer asks the reader to place modern conceptions of sexuality and sexual orientation aside. He correctly reminds the reader that sexuality, in terms of heterosexual and homosexual, are modern inventions. In early America sex was an action and not something that defined someone’s identity. This is essential to the validity of Godbeer’s thesis, and without the checking of modern conceptions it is impossible to understand early modern sex and sexual reform. It was under this understanding that Puritan leaders sought to impose sexual and moral reform. They emphasized sexual actions as a gift of marriage—a gift one spouse would give to the other. Puritan reformers sought to counter traditional relationship between engagement and sexual relations, by insisting on official church marriages.
Sexual reform differed in the southern colonies.

Godbeer argues, that southern leaders found a relationship between living on edge of “wilderness,” savagery, and sexual relations. Quite interestingly, Godbeer found that the cultural difference between Europeans and natives led settlers to conclude a difference in morals. Accordingly, colonists feared that sexual relations between European settlers and natives would lead to moral and social degradation. This situation was further complicated by the forced importation of enslaved Africans. African women were seen as naturally promiscuous, and thus at fault for any interracial sexual relations that occurred. This, Godbeer argues, allowed the focus to shift from the actions of white slave owners to enslaved

Africans.
Interestingly, Goodbeer draws several themes between sexual reform in Puritan New England and the southern colonies. In both, he found that ordinary colonists held traditional ideas of sex, though not necessarily the same, which ran in opposition to what colonial officials concluded was needed for proper society. Godbeer is quick to point out this difference in thought. Just because leaders imposed sexual reform upon the colonists does not mean that they took up the ideas whole heartily. Settlers continued to live together without being officially married. Not every marriage was met with a formal marriage ceremony. Colonists continued to seek new partners without seeking legal divorce.
Godbeer treats other notions of sexuality very well, by investigation community response to sodomy, bestiality, incest, and rape.

Community members saw these as actions and not a behavior indicative of a certain type of person. Homosexual acts, for example, were treated as actions that were deemed sinful due to their non-reproductive nature. The work would not be complete without a consideration for other types of sex. All too easily Godbeer could have neglected non-traditional, meaning non-male and female, sexual relations. Luckily Godbeer’s work does not suffer from this potentially fatal flaw. Additionally, Godbeer does an excellent job telling the reader to check modern concepts of sex and sexual identity. By thinking of sex and sexuality in terms other than as actions would be to apply modern conceptions backwards, and totally miss the essence of sex and sexuality in early America. The word homosexual does not enter the lexicon until 1886 when it was used in the pioneering work of Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia

Sexualis.
In forming his conclusions, Godbeer investigates a vast array of sources: sermons, theological treaties, governmental documents, laws, judicial decisions, private journals, diaries, and correspondence. Many of these sources were written anonymously. Here in lies the problem with Godbeer’s Sexual Revolution in Early America. The issue is not in the type of sources that Godbeer has used, but rather in the assumptions that the author makes about some sources. Joan R. Gundersen has been critical of Godbeer by stating that “he too readily assumes that the gender of the author is discernible based on the voice of the poem or the pen name adopted.” I agree with Gundersen in that Godbeer does at times jump to judgment. Just because an anonymous writer adopts the perspective of a man or a women does not necessarily indicate the writer’s gender. Maybe a women would have felt that she may have not been taken seriously if she took on a female voice? Or maybe the argument the writer was making required a male or a female voice. In writing about the tolerance of “nocturnal courtship” Godbeer relies on a song written from supposable a mother’s perspective. The song reads:
Some mothers too will plead their cause,
And give their daughters great applause,
And tell them, ‘tis no sin or shame,
For we, your mothers, did the same;
We hope the customer ne’er will alter,
But wish its enemies haler.

He concludes that some parent’s tolerated “nocturnal courtship” reluctantly while others “did so wholeheartedly.” Now this song was published anonymously, so we are left to assume that the writer was a women. Godbeer takes this to mean that “mothers were notable supportive of the customer” of “nocturnal courtship.” There is no indication that these lyrics were written by a women. That begs us to ask, “What if these where written by a man, would his conclusion of tolerance change?” I am not sure, but the reader should not have to make this judgment. Godbeer should have provided the reader with an explanation why he made the assumption. For we have no way of knowing if the author was a man who simply wanted to gain support for “nocturnal courtship” by taking on a female voice.
In conclusion, Richard Godbeer’s Sexual Revolution in Early America, is an impressive work that presents a compelling thesis. Godbeer’s willingness to take into focus both the Puritanical north and the anxieties of the south are fascinating. His treatment of differing forms of sex and sexual relations in early America are refreshing. However, the work is not without its flaws. The unexplained assumption that the author makes over the voice of anonymous texts are a tad troubling.