Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cultural construction of sexuality
Cultural construction of sexuality
Essays on human sexuality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The construction of human sexuality has been and remains an enigma in today’s society. The prominent and well fought debate can be compacted into one simple title: Nature vs. Nurture. There is no clear answer to how our human sexuality is formed.
In the debate of the construction of human sexuality, two extremes make up the boundaries. These extremes are essentialism and constructionism (Harding 6-17). It is most likely that the truth behind the construction of sexuality lies somewhere in between these two ideologies. Understanding the two is critical in determining one’s own theories and beliefs on the subject. Jennifer Harding describes the two ideologies in detail in her essay Investigating Sex: Essentialism and Constructionism.
Simply put, the essentialist perspective is the view that sexuality is a product of biological destiny. It is the belief that sexuality is a natural phenomenon that is not influenced at all by culture and society. Sexuality is made up of drives and desires that make up one’s identity as a sexual person.
The constructionist perspective is the opposing viewpoint to the essentialist perspective. Harding defines the constructionist perspective as the belief that sexuality has no inherent essence but must be understood as a configuration of cultural meanings (Harding 6-17). In other words, human sexuality is not defined by biology at all, but instead is completely culturally constructed. The constructionist’s primary focuses are cultural institutions, norms, practices and relations, and how these define human sexuality. An example from Harding’s essay states that a study of the history of sexuality has shown that sexuality has changed greatly throughout human history (Harding 6-17). If s...
... middle of paper ...
...ld servants had nicknames,” (Watson 178-187).
Showing such major differences between these two cultures with little overlap between the two strongly suggests that the differences in sexuality are due to cultural constructions. Seeing the immense differences and encountering difficulty trying to find similarities between these two cultures, it is clear that all human beings come into this world via the same process: sexual intercourse. It is also clear that, commonly, men are larger and stronger than women. These traits exist everywhere in the world. However, the physical violence of the machismo is not observed globally, nor is the extreme suppression of women observed everywhere. These ideals exist alone, in their separate cultures. Human sexuality may have some biological influences, but it is largely and almost completely a construction of culture.
In Making Sex by Thomas Laqueur, the author analysis sexual differences throughout the 18th century reviewing physicians, scientist, biologist and how society understood the anatomy and physiology of the human body. Laqueur brig us two sex models; the one-sex model and the two-sex model. He explains who we transition from the one-sex model to the two-sex model. How this two models had impacted our society and created an impact in history had it to do with the fact that a lot of evidence was drawn from science. Laqueur also explains how society constructed sex. He takes this investigation in very detail as he explains and investigates sexual differences.
Since the dawn of man, sex has played a crucial role in society. Before they learned to read or write humans were engaging in sex and without it none of us would be here. In today’s society, sex has grown to become much more complicated. If I were to ask a group of people on the street what they believed sex was? I bet they would have a hard time answering. The question puzzling society today is how do we define sex? Can we define sex? These are questions raised in Tracy Steele’s article “Doing it: The Social Construction of S-E-X”. This article is about the current questions and issues that have been raised about sex within today’s society. In this paper I will summarize the key points of the article, while sharing my own thoughts and opinions of Steele’s findings.
Sexuality has often been confused with pornography. It has been trivialised as something that is a denigration and denial of true feeling by sensationalising genuine expressivism.
In the article “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality” the authors, Patrick Gray and Linda Wolfe speak about how societies look at human sexuality. The core concept of anthology is the idea of culture, the systems of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors people acquire as a member of society. The authors give an in depth analysis on how human sexuality is looked at in all different situations.
Governed under the principles of male supremacy and superiority, it is comprehensible as to why female sexuality has been coined a “dangerous mechanism”
...am Victorian society, sexual liberalism transformed the ways in which people arranged their private lives. Shifting from a Victorian environment of production, separate sexual spheres, and the relegation of any illicit extramarital sex to an underworld of vice, the modern era found itself in a new landscape of consumerism, modernism and inverted sexual stereotypes. Sexuality was now being discussed, systemized, controlled, and made an object of scientific study and popular discourse. Late nineteenth-century views on "natural" gender and sexuality, with their attendant stereotypes about proper gender roles and proper desires, lingered long into the twentieth century and continue, somewhat fitfully, to inform the world in which we live. It is against this cultural and political horizon that an understanding of sexuality in the modern era needs to be contextualized.
Unlike sex, the history of sexuality is dependant upon society and limited by its language in order to be defined and understood.
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” focused on the history of sexuality and sexual persecution. Gayle Rubin recognizes the idea of sex as a natural force that exists prior to social life and which shapes institutions and society. First, Rubin, emphasizes the idea of negative sex, by showcasing views by other scholars. Rubin notes Foucault in his 1978 publication “The History of Sexuality”, as “sex as the natural libedo wearing to break free of social constraint” (Rubin, 149). This leads Rubin to her understanding of sex negativity. Sex, as Rubin depicts, is dangerous, destructive and a negative force and sex negativity is any negative sexual behaviour other than married or reproductive sex. Many Western religious believe that sex should only be for reproductive reasons and that pleasure and anything outside of martial sex should not be experienced. Third, Rubin goes on to construct the charmed circle, distinguishing good and bad sex. Resulting from sex negativity, Rubin develops an illustration of good and bas sex, better known as the charmed circle. Instances of bad sex include; casual,
What controls a human's sexual orientation? The long-standing debate of nature versus nurture can be extended to explaining human sexual orientation. Is it biological or environmental? The biological explanation has been gaining popularity amongst the scientific community although it is only based on speculations. It is argued that sexual orientation is linked to factors that occur during sexual differentiation. The prenatal exposure to androgens and their affect on the development of the human brain play a pivotal role in sexual orientation (2). Heredity is also part of the debate. Does biology merely provide the slate of neural circuitry upon which sexual orientation is inscribed? Do biological factors directly wire the brain so that it will support a particular orientation? Or do biological factors influence sexual orientation only indirectly?
From birth, one's sexuality is shaped by society. Cultures institute behaviors that are to be seen as the societal norms, which work to constantly reinforce societal expectations of how genders should act in relation to one another. Although some may argue that one's sexuality is an innate characteristic resulting from genetic makeup, there is a large amount of evidence pointing to its social construction instead. Through the power differences between males and females, established gender roles, and drastic economic shifts, society establishes sexuality and reinforces the behaviors that are expected of its citizens.
Osmundson, Joseph. "'I Was Born This Way': Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter?" Harvard Kennedy School. N.p., 2011. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. .
How does 'sexuality' come into being, and what connections does it have with the changes that have affected personal life on a more general plane? In answering these questions, Anthony Giddens disputes many of the interpretations of the role of sexuality in our culture. The emergence of what he calls plastic sexuality, which is sexuality freed from its original relation of reproduction, is analyzed in terms of the long-term development of the modern social order and social influences of the last few decades. Giddens argues that the transformation of intimacy, in which women have played the major part, holds out the possibility of a society that is very traditional. "This book will appeal to a large general audience as well as being essential reading for those students in sociology and theory."(Manis 1)
The behaviors of the Pokot wives and husbands illustrated in the article “Human sexuality in cross-culture Perspective” show the norms of sexuality behaviors that are different from the U.S norms. The Pokot wives believe that their behaviors are right things to be done or are the appropriate sanctions given to a husband who is not able to sexually satisfy his wife. However, the US perceives these behaviors differently. In the US perspective, it is considered to be a deviance that is against the law within the society. It is considers to be domestic abuse which might lead some individuals involved in this behaviors to be given a negative sanctions like sending them to prison.