See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223593427

From Reproductive Health to Sexual Rights: Achievements and

Future Challenges

Article  in  Reproductive Health Matters · November 1997

DOI: 10.1016/S0968-8080(97)90091-4

CITATIONS READS

71 432

1 author:

Sonia Corrêa
Associação Brasileira Interdisciplinar de AIDS
43 PUBLICATIONS   825 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gender&Politic in Latin America View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sonia Corrêa on 16 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sonia Corr&a

This paper aims to map recent changes in discourse on sexuality and reproduction and identify
new conceptual perspectives on gender and sexuality. First, it examines the etymology ofrecently
legitimised concepts -reproductive rights, sexual health, and sexual rights - which are related to,
but separate from, the concept of reproductive health. Second, it considers the status and
meaning of these terms vis-&W’S an agenda for social transformation. Lastly, it focuses on new
conceptualisations of gender and sexuality and analyses whether it is possible to distinguish
between these two concepts.

way of life is ageing. This change can be concepts as broadly as possible among policy-

A as radical, but also as gradual, as the tran-

sition from medieval to modern society.
This state of transition makes certain ways
of thinking both possible and necessary, while
excluding others.‘l
First words
Two premises have inspired this article. The
first is that the language of reproductive health,
gender and sexuality - language that until rec-
ently was used almost exclusively in the academic
milieu and within social movements - has under-
gone a process of legitimisation. One illustration
of this is the fact that this language has
been included in the programmes of action of
the International Conference on Population and
Development (Cairo 1994), the Fourth World
Conference on Women (Beijing 1995) and the
World Summit for Social Development (Cop-
enhagen 1995). This process has been uneven,
however. While the words themselves have
become common in international texts and
analyses, the extent of assimilation of their mean-
ings by national political bodies and in people’s
minds varies widely across countries.
Thus, it continues to be necessary for fem-
inists to disseminate information about these
makers, legislators, and society itself. Clarification
of the meanings of these terms continues to be
required, since the process of legitimisation may
lead to simplifications and distortions in the
course of policy development and application.
The second premise emerges from the aware-
ness that the theoretical links between repro-
ductive health, gender and sexuality constitute a
complex and unstable fabric. It remains a matter
of discussion whether ‘reproductive health’ is a
concept, a field, or simply a research approach -
or all three of these and more.
‘Gender’ has definitely been established as
a category of social analysis, yet in practice it
inspires differentiated, even contradictory usages.
The status of ‘sexuality’ is even more complex,
as its application ranges from the ontological
concept of sexuality used in psychoanalysis to
conventional applications in sexology. Given the
present stage of legitimisation of this language,
it is tempting to try to protect these terms,
neutralising any questions that may arise with
regard to them. In my view, however, it is
necessary to maintain -a conceptual openness,
because their legitimisation creates the risk that
certain of their meanings, which should be kept
alive from a feminist point of view, might other-
wise be lost.

107
From reproductive health to sexual
rights: undoing the web
The Cairo and Beijing conferences and docu-
ments legitimised more than just reproductive
health; notions of reproductive rights and sexual
health, as well as issues related to sexual rights,
are also well-established, at least at an inter-
national level. Until recently, these complex and,
why not say it, radical concepts appear to have
been kept hidden under the large umbrella of
reproductive health. However, for the sake of
popularisation and simplification the terms are
currently being used interchangeably.* Hence, it
is urgent to make explicit their etymologies and
meanings, and the differences between them, as
feminists understand these.
Between the 1980s and the mid-1990s, efforts
to legitimise ‘reproductive health’ led to its use in
ways that responded to the needs of different
interest groups and actors. The concept was
developed by institutions, including those in the
international family planning network, but also
and especially the World Health Organization.
Similar efforts were taking place within inter-
national women’s health movement groups. The
ongoing dialogue between these two ‘worlds’
was at the root of the Cairo consensus. The
bridge connecting them was made possible by
a critique of biomedical approaches to women’s
health, which dominate research on human
reproduction, and by challenges to linear
arguments that justified population policies
and top-down (and inefficient) family planning
programmes. These critiques were developed,
although in different terms, on both sides of the
fence. Building a consensus was no simple task
and tensions linger on.
The etymology of the term ‘reproductive
rights’ is mostly to be found among women’s
groups and in a non-institutional framework. Its
conceptualisation was directly linked to the
struggle for the right to safe, legal abortion and
contraception in industrialised countries in the
1970s and 1980s. Its first stage of legitimation did
not take place at the institutional level but instead
was achieved through a political consensus
made possible in a relatively marginalised, inter-
national feminist gathering: the 4th International
Women and Health Meeting in Amsterdam in
1984.“s4 On that occasion, Northern and South-
ern feminists reached an agreement - although
temporary -that this terminology was adequate
108
to the movement’s political goals in relation to
the betterment of women’s reproductive lives
across the world.
Between 1984 and the mainstreaming of this
language in Cairo (1994), the concept was refined
in collaboration with activists and researchers
in the human rights field. A fundamental con-
tribution was made by Isaacs and Freedman in
19925 in unearthing pre-existing United Nations
definitions related to ‘reproductive rights’. Along
the same lines, Cook developed a line of think-
ing which places women’s reproductive needs
within a human rights and health rights frame-
work.‘j Throughout that decade, women’s move-
ments in several continents have continued to
discuss problems arising from these concepts
and the conceptual associations between repro-
ductive rights and reproductive health. Since the
mid-80s, the critique of western notions of
individualism that are often associated with
notions of (reproductive) rights has given rise
to debate within the feminist community. In
some developing countries activists preferred
until recently to talk about reproductive health,
as they considered that this notion better
expressed women’s basic needs.7
The link between reproductive health and
rights, through a perspective that encompasses
the premise of equitable development and
human rights, led to an agreement8 among
women’s health activists in January 1994, at a
meeting in Rio de Janeiro, to achieve a consensus
on how to approach the ICPD in Cairo. This
meeting was the grounding for the efforts at
ICPD to revise the neo-Malthusian paradigm
which for 30 years had prevailed in the
population field. Two conceptual elements were
crucial to this effort: the premise of the
indivisibility of human rights and&he notion of an
‘enabling environment’ for exercising those
rights (economic, social and political conditions).
The inclusion by feminist activists of refer-
ences to the political significance of ‘sexual
matters’ in this process, however, appeared in
references to health and reproductive rights at
quite a late stage in this process, practically on
the eve of Cairo. In this sense, as Petchesky
suggests,g sexual rights are the ‘youngest kid
in international debates on the meaning and
practice of human rights, particularly women’s
human rights’.
During the ICPD prgparatory process, some

official delegations (for example, Norway and
Sweden) introduced the term ‘sexual health’ into
certain paragraphs of the Programme of Action.
In Cairo, feminists lobbied official delegations for
the inclusion of ‘sexual rights’ in Paragraph 7.3,
which contains the definition of ‘reproductive
rights’. By suggesting a further radicalisation of
the language, we were aiming for the retention
of ‘reproductive rights’ in the final text, which
was hard enough to ensure. Consequently, the
failure of ICPD to adopt the term ‘sexual rights’
was not exactly considered a defeat.
However, one year later in Beijing, language
was approved in Paragraph 96 of the Platform of
Action which, although it does not explicitly
mention ‘sexual rights’ does spell out what its
elements would be:
‘The human rights of women include their right
to have control over and decide freely and
responsibly on matters related to their sexuality,
including sexual and reproductive health, free
of coercion, discrimination and violence. Equal
relationships between women and men in matters
of sexual relations and reproduction, including
ICPD, Cairo 1994
Reproductive Health Matters, No 10, Novembel- 1997
full respect for the integrity of the person, require
mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility
for sexual behaviour and its consequences. 4o
Taking into account the relative thinness of the
conceptual elaboration of ‘sexual rights’ one year
earlier,ll and the range of countries negotiating
the text, the final result is extremely significant.l’
Sexual health vs sexual rights
The development of the notion of sexual health,
on the one hand, and sexual rights on the other,
also have distinct histories, much in the same
way as the concepts of reproductive health and
reproductive rights do. ‘Sexual health’ was and
remains the more acceptable of the two terms,
for official institutions, arising in some cases
because of the existence of the AIDS pandemic.
Before and since its incorporation in the Cairo
and Beijing documents, the term has been used
as an umbrella for research and action in the field
of sexuality.‘”
The political and discursive evolution of
‘sexual rights’, however, occurred as a result of
political and cultural changes of a radical nature
in societies themselves, the concept being formu-
lated on two fronts. On the one hand, feminist
reflections on the links between sexuality,
reproduction and inequalities between the sexes
- particularly vigorous in the USA, Europe and
Latin America - led to the formulation of the
concept of sexual self-determination, A similar
strand evolved from political struggles against
discrimination led by lesbian and gay com-
munities, particularly in the USA.
Conflicts of interpretation
This semantic evolution indicates that in the
post-Cairo and Beijing era it is not sufficient to
explore the links between gender, sexuality, and
reproductive health. Rather, it is necessary to go
beyond this, clarifying the connections of gender
and sexuality with sexual health, and particularly
with reproductive and sexual rights, which
makes the task exceedingly complex.
One illustration of the kinds of tensions that
will arise is the subtle differentiation between
‘health’ and ‘reproductive’, on the one side, and
‘rights’ and ‘sexual’, on the other. While the
former terms denote ‘good behaviour’ and are
viewed as acceptable concepts by institutions,
‘rights’ and ‘sexual’ sound more radical and are
therefore at risk of being minimised or even left
out in the drafting and application of policy. In a
number of such contexts, reproductive health
policies since 1995 may simply be semantic re-
interpretations or refinements of conventional
maternal and child health or family planning
programmes, still presented in the absence of the
related reproductive rights agenda, the sexuality
dimension, or the identification of abortion as a
public health issue.14
Rance, for example, describes how, in the
post-Cairo period in Bolivia, the Safe Mother-
hood initiative has tended to exclude women
who have had a botched abortion. Regarding
sexual health, distortions can be even more
problematic.15 Carol Vance argues that this
notion is being understood by conservative
sectors in the USA as ‘reproduction in marriage,
ie. abstinence, no access to sex information about
birth control, abortion, and homosexuality’.16
These responses are neither accidental nor
innocent. They reflect what Fraser has identified
as the last stage of the political legitimation
process: the bitter struggle of interpretation.17 In
circumstances characterised by strong disputes
about meanings, it becomes indispensable to re-
visit the original premises of the feminist agenda,
and to make explicit once again the ‘feminist
project’ which inspired the conceptualisation of
this terminology.
Re-examining feminist concepts
and goals
It is my basic premise that the sexual and
reproductive health and rights agenda has been
formulated to transform: i) the spheres where
sexual and reproductive needs are defined, ii)
the domains in which gender power relations
are played out, and iii) subjective views of
women’s bodies and reproduction. This agenda
was informed by a perspective of liberation,
emancipation or, to use the newer terminol-
ogy, empowerment. Definitions of reproductive
health and rights, and of sexual health and rights
were constructed and intended as ‘levers’
to move this perspective forward. These are
examples of what Santos (1996) considers the
critical contribution of social movements to
contemporary po1itics.18
To construct these ‘levers’ feminists added the
adjectives ‘reproductive’ and ‘sexual’ to concepts
which have been with us for a long time:
concepts of health and rights. ‘Health’, as Vance
analyses it, has multiple facets. It remains open to
the most varied interpretations: the biological
(hegemonic), the socio-economic, and the political
(as public policy). It can also carry an ethical
and moral significance (eg. spiritual health or
institutional health). Finally, it can be described
as a right-the right to health as a human right.
From the point of view of fhe agenda of
emancipation, this multifaceted concept requires
caution; each of us needs to clarify which
interpretation of health s/he means.
To this extent, the World Health Organiza-
tion’s definition of reproductive health, reiterated
and enhanced in Cairo, remains important,
because it makes explicit the multi-dimension-
ality of what feminists mean by ‘reproductive
and sexual health’ and the spheres and processes
in which these terms are applied:
‘Reproductive health is a state of complete
physical, mental and social well being and not

merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all
matters relating to the reproductive system and its
functions and processes. Reproductive health
therefore implies that people are able to have a
satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the
capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide
if, when and how often to do so.. Sexual health
aims to enhance life and personal relations and
not merely counselling and care related to
reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases.‘lg
These are domains that cannot be viewed strictly
in biological, demographic or quantitative terms.
They require the input of other elements and
instruments of analysis: subjectivity, culture,
politics, economy, social relations, ethics and
values.
The implications of adding ‘reproductive’
and ‘sexual’ to ‘rights’ are entirely different,
because the substantive element is in itself more
precise. ‘Rights’ will always imply the capacity
to make autonomous decisions, to assume
responsibilities and to fulfil needs, both in the
individual and the collective sense. The con-
struction of rights implies the re-balancing of
power relations and a horizon of justice. The
notion of rights refers to the relationship of the
subject with her/himself, and the relationship
between individuals and collectivities (societies,
states, markets).20
Given this framework, it seems clear that
defining the agenda of reproductive and sexual
health and rights, on the most basic level, is
about seeking the satisfaction of people’s repro-
ductive and sexual needs, particularly women’s
needs, as well as legal changes regarding
sexuality and reproduction. This is a ‘classical
conceptual and political agenda,‘l directed at
the state as a central pillar of regulation in
contemporary society. I refer here both to the
state in its historical form (the nation-state) and
in its contemporary and still evolving form -the
global apparatus of regulation such as the United
Nations and the World Bank.
This agenda also makes it possible to engage
in struggles for women’s well being and repro-
ductive self-determination in relation to the
market. Feminist research and action regarding
the side effects and abuses of contraceptive
methods are examples of how the premise of
rights can positively influence commercial
research protocols and marketing. However,
Reproductive Health Matters, No 10, Nove~~~bcr 1997
efforts to challenge the market and its logic
along these lines continue to be relatively
thin when compared with feminist efforts and
achievements in relation to the transformation of
state laws and health policies and programmes.
Further, for feminists, theorising about and
acting on reproductive and sexual health and
rights issues also means continuing to try to
clarify the concepts that underlie the words,
in the face of the hegemony and dogma of the
biomedical perspective, demographic measure-
ment and goals, and legal and juridical theory. To
this extent, the political goal implicit in the
application of sexual and reproductive health
and rights concepts is also to deconstruct and
reconstruct the normative premises of science
(which is cognitive, experimental and rational)
and the law (which is practical and rational).2z
Thus, by applying these definitions feminists
are not only intervening in the classical political
arenas of the state and the market, but also
challenging the dominant normative forces
which have the power to determine the limits
and possibilities of transforming contemporary
societies. With this understanding, the bound-
aries and goals of the feminist project will be
clarified, and the theoretical and methodological
instruments which should be applied in the
domains of analysis and action can be made
more precise.
Gender and sexuality: fusion vs
distinction
‘An important barrier in our efforts to understand
gender relations is the difficulty in comprehend-
ing the links between sex and gender.‘l
Given the significance of Cairo and Beijing for
the feminist women’s health movement, it is
important to discern what the implications are
for the future. An important part of this process
is to explore the conceptual and political
challenges that emerge in the face of the
unwillingness to legitimise the concept of sexual
rights.
Petchesky identifies a trend in international
women’s rights campaigns towards emphasising
horrors such as genital mutilation and trafficking
in women and children, which propagate an
image of women as victims in the arena of
sexuality. This discourse, she says, is so powerful
111
that it was not surprising in Beijing that: ‘the
spectre of sexualised bodies desiring pleasure
remained lurking behind the debates’.g Although
Petchesky is right, the explanation for this silence
should also be sought in feminist and other
theoretical analyses of gender and sexuality.23-25
The academic and political environment in
which feminist definitions of sexual and repro-
ductive rights were elaborated has been strongly
influenced by post-structuralist and constructivist
theories.25,27,28 The analytical arsenal of social
construction (and deconstruction) - theories of
language, of discourse and of difference - have
fertilised the debates and research on gender
and sexuality.23,2g-32
‘Gender’ has been defined by Gayle Rubin as:
‘. . . the totality of arrangements through which a
society transforms biological sexuality into a
human activity, and in which human needs are
both satisfied and transformed. The power of
gender operates more forcefully during the
childbearing years, when the means of controlling
sexuality, reproduction and access to work are
most focused and function in a clearer and
sharper fashion.‘27
Teresita de Barbieri enhances this definition as
follows:
‘. the social construction that defines and gives
meaning to sexual and human reproduction.‘33
Rubin, however, later retraced her own theo-
retical steps and re-conceptualised sexuality as
an autonomous sphere in which personal, social,
cultural and political relationships are built and
transformed.25 Rather than linking sexuality and
gender, her more recent work maintains that:
‘. .gender and sexuality are the basis of two
different arenas of social practice.’
This new approach implies that the construction
of gender identities, gender norms, and the
asymmetry in the relations between men and
women do not necessarily determine the
manifestation of sexual desire, erotic practices
and the experience of sexual pleasure.
Along similar lines, through studies of male
homosexuality in Brazilian culture, Richard
112
Parker has developed a theoretical triangle in
which gender, sexuality and the erotic are linked.
In his analysis, ‘sexuality system’ is partially
defined by religious doctrine, the biomedical
perspective and other such mechanisms of
control, while the ‘erotic’ is designated as the
sphere of imaginative and passionate bodies at
play, which we call sexuality.23
Similarly, Carol Vancel” suggests that distin-
guishing these systems is an important step, to
get beyond essentialist assumptions of gender,
sexuality and reproduction. She reminds us
that biomedicine has converged with religious
assumptions which defined reproduction (het-
erosexual, penetrative) as sexuality, replacing:
'older ideas of unnatural sexuality as sin, by newer
ideas of unnatural sexuality as physical aber-
rations or violations of a physically constituted
Jaw of nature,.
These hegemonic conceptions are strongly
grounded in the notions that men are ‘naturally
men’, women are ‘naturally women’ and
sexuality is definitely gender-bound.
Dowsett34 takes an even more radical position
in this conceptual trend of distinguishing gender
and sexuality systems. As a result of his study of
men who sometimes have sex with other men,
he elaborates a concept of ‘sexual construction
of sociality’, which turns upside down the
Foucaultian formulation that sexuality is socially
constructed.35,36 In addition, he suggests that, in
the context of ‘bodyplay’, gender difference as a
means of explaining passive and active roles may
have little meaning. The implicit idea is that any
erotic encounter between two (or more) people
will always contain the potential for each of
them to be active and creative* agents in the
search for pleasure.37
The ideas of Rubin, Van’ce, Parker and Dow-
sett help and inspire us, in the post-Beijing era,
to get some distance from the premise that
conceptual approaches to sexuality are neces-
sarily derived from theories of gender.25 This is
no easy task because of how closely gender and
sexuality are connected with reproduction, work
and power.
Costa made a brilliant contribution in 1996 in
a paper that focused on the example of western
culture. It shows that prior to the Enlightenment,
metaphysics did not, emphasise the sexual differ-

ences between men and women; this only came
later.38 The paradigm of the body up to that time
was the male body. Woman’s body was
represented as an inverted and imperfect male
body, in which penis and testicles were turned
inward. The hegemonic ‘two-sex model’ of today
resulted from an ideological need on the part of
Enlightenment liberalism to resolve the contra-
diction between equality (grounded in the
premise that all individuals are in possession of
the same faculty of Reason) and difference
(between the male and female bodies in which
Reason was lodged):
‘To see the body as a sign of difference between
the sexes was to establish inequality, discontinuity
and opposition, where there used to be a con-
troversial and unsettling juridical and political
equality. ‘38
Thus, it took a specific conceptualisation of sex to
arrive at the accentuation of the sexual difference
between male and female bodies, and therefore
between men and women. Sex, as constructed by
18th century philosophers, was a vital force that
was more present in and manifested by women.
According to Rousseau, for example:
‘The (human) male is only male at certain
moments. Females are females all their lives.. .
Everything, all the time, evokes her sex to her.. .
Women would be identified by their sexuality and
bodies, men by their spirit and energy.‘38
As a result of such views, women began to be
seen as better prepared for private life (not
public life, as men) and as weaker - not because
of a ‘deficit of Reason’ but as a consequence of
the greater sexual saturation of their bodies. In
subsequent stages, anatomical evidence (medical
and scientific) of this radical differentiation,
which has lasted to this day, was to be
researched and better elaborated.
The ‘two-sex model’ corresponds to a mono-
lithic view of sexuality which was analysed
by Foucault, that is, a definition of sexuality
that is dominated by the male-female
couple.35,36 The role of sexual choice as
something occurring only between men and
women contributed to the establishment of the
nuclear family in the modern era, in which
sexuality took on a predominantly procreative
Reproductive Health Matters, No 10, November 1997
role. Also crucial to this definition of sexuality
was the necessity of uniting two complementary
opposites’ - as men and women had come to be
seen. Once it was accepted that sexuality has, as
its maximum expression, the forms and
substance of the female body, control over
female sexual and erotic expression could be
justified as necessary.
Sexual rights: future challenges
Given the prevailing global influence of western
cultural patterns, it is necessary to deconstruct
the complex fabric holding together the ‘two-
sex model’ so as to distinguish gender influences
in relation to sexuality and eroticism. A first
step in this direction would be to explore the
similarities instead of stressing the differences
between men and women. This would be in line
with Flax’s 1 premise that sexual differences are
less important and relevant than has been
suggested by prevailing norms, representations,
symbols and practices.35,36
Another critical step would be to break
conceptually with the view that there is only
one monolithic form of sexuality, and therefore
of eroticism, by changing the language from
singular to plural in research and analysis, and
disseminating the notion of ‘sexualities’. The
concept of multiple sexualities emerges in the
light of existing theory and research on homo-
sexuality and bisexuality.
However, this notion of ‘sexualities’ also
needs to be explored in relation to heterosexual
relations. This would make it easier, for example,
to describe and analyse sexual practices, eroti-
cism and pleasure in the different stages of
human life - childhood, adolescence, adulthood
and old age. This plurality is also fundamental for
understanding better the manifestation of gender
and sexuality where western sociocultural
models overlap with other belief systems.
The proposition that it is necessary to seek to
distinguish the systems of gender and sexuality
does not imply an automatic or dogmatic
adoption of these theoretical referents. Above
all, it is intended to encourage those of us
working on these issues to take into account
these new conceptual grids and utilise .them in
research and practice, as they can help to
establish clearer parameters for advancing the
sexual rights agenda.
113
 Throughout the modern era, the notion of
gender equality has been neutralised by the
stratagem of overstating sexual differentiation.
The deconstruction of the ‘two-sex model’ makes
it possible to posit gender equality as a premise
for political, juridical, social and economic justice.
It may also facilitate efforts to ‘deconstruct the
masculine’. In the face of persistently problem-
atised and medicalised concepts of the feminine
(and of sexual inverts and deviants), the
masculine - the Enlightenment Man - continues
to be treated as an immutable fact, However, if
cultural perceptions and norms can be changed
with regard to women’s roles and identities, the
same can be applied to the construction of male
identity. The distinction of gender and sexuality
systems can therefore be an important tool for
mapping out more precisely the personal and
social costs of a supposedly fixed and immutable
masculine identity.
Furthermore, arguments in favour of distin-
guishing gender and sexuality are indispensable
for recasting perspectives on emancipation in
relation to sexuality. To revive the idea of ‘sexual
emancipation’ does not mean a return to the sim-
plistic premises of sexual liberation of the 1960s.
It does imply an awareness that it is necessary to
engage in the search for new theory on sexual
pleasure for women. The distinction between
gender and sexuality systems can make it
possible to identify and make visible women’s
agency, eroticism and pleasure. It can also help us
to:
‘prevent ourselves from sliding towards a position
of asserting the victimisation of women and of
other sexual subjects and bodies, whereupon they
can easily be subject to moralistic responses.“”
Above all, the distinction provides a concep-
tual grounding for advancing politically the idea
of ‘erotic justice’,z5 which applies to both the
domain of personal relations and to the public
sphere: individual sexual practice should be
pleasurable but also animated by principles of
respect for the integrity and will of the ‘other’;
social, economic and cultural conditions should
lead to gender equality, freedom of sexual
orientation and non-discrimination; and finally,
individual sexual expression should no longer be
subject to moral or legal constraints. The
linkages to sexual rights are clear; sexual rights
are the necessary lever by which to achieve the
‘enabling environment’ required for the fulfil-
ment of the principles of erotic justice.3,40
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this paper was presented
at the Seminario International sobre Avanzes en
Salud Reproductiva, Colegio de Mexico, November
1996. Translation into English was by Jones de
Freitas. Thanks to Phil Courneyeur for help with
editing the translation in English.
Correspondence
Sonia Correa, IBASE, Rua Vicente de Souza 12, Rio
de Janeiro 22251070, Brazil. Fax: 55-21-286-0541

References and Notes

Flax J, 1992. Pbs-modernismo e
as RelacBes de G&nerona Teoria
Feminista. Pbs-modernismo e
Politica. Holanda H (ed). Rocco,
Rio de Janeiro.
For example, the Brazilian
national document, being
prepared as the Plan of Equality
and Opportunities, included
reproductive rights in the
section on health but not in the
section on human rights.
Correa S, Reichmann R, 1994.
Population and Reproductive
Rights: Feminist Perspectives
from the South. Zed Books,
London.
Garcia-Moreno C, Claro A, 1994
Challenges from the women’s
health movement: women’s
rights versus population control.
Population Policies
Reconsidered: Health,
Empowerment, andRights. Sen
G, Germain A, Chen LC (eds).
Harvard University Press,
Boston.
Freedman LP, Isaacs SL, 1993.
Human rights and reproductive
choice. Studies in Family
Planning. 24(1):18-30.
Cook R, 1994. Women’s Health
and Human Rights. World
Health Organization, Geneva.
Examples are: discussions in the
Women’s Global Network for
Reproductive Rights, DAWN
network members’ preparations
for ICPD and the IRRRAG
project. *
8 Petchesky R, 1996. Sexual rights:
inventing a concept, mapping
and international practice. Paper
presented at Re-Conceiving
Sexualities: International
Seminar on Gender, Sexuality
and Sexual Health. Rio de
Janeiro, 13-18 April.
9. Women’s Voices. Declaracao do
Rio. Satide Reproductiva e
JustiGa Conferencia
Jnternacional da Salidc da
Mulherpara o Cairo 94. CEPIA,
International Women’s Health

Coalition, Rio de Janeiro.
10. FWCW Platform for Action,
Section C, Paragraph 96, United
Nations, 1995.
ll.Two significant examples are:
(i) A paper I wrote with R
Petchesky: Reproductive and
sexual rights: a feminist
perspective (see 1361below for
reference). However, this text
does not elaborate in any depth
on the implications of the
concept in terms of sexuality.
(ii) Population and Reproductive
Rights: Feminist Perspectives
from the South, written on the
basis of discussions among
feminist researchers and
activists in five Southern regions
(Latin America, the Caribbean,
Asia, Africa and the Pacific) in
which the theme of sexuality was
included. It addresses situations
in which the notion of sexual
rights could be applied (eg. in
relation to genital mutilation and
rape in marriage) but it does not
discuss the concept of sexual
rights itself. (See 131above for
reference.)
12 Participating in the informal
negotiations were: the Dutch
Minister for the European
Union, United States, Iran,
Morocco, Egypt, Senegal for the
African region, the Caribbean,
and several Latin American
countries. Clearly, there were
very diverse motivations. The
European Union position,
especially that of the
Netherlands, was influenced by a
domestic commitment to the
homosexual movement. The
African agenda was to eradicate
child marriage and genital
mutilation. More liberal Islamic
countries fought for a weaker
definition to avoid
fundamentalist reactions upon
their return from Beijing. The
Caribbean and some Latin
American countries defended
the paragraph as a democratic
principle. The United States kept
a low profile because of
conservative pressure at home.
Reproductive Health Matters, No 10, November 1997
13. Mexican NGOs with HIV/AIDS
prevention programmes are
using the notion of sexual health
extensively, in the belief that this
term is better adapted to certain
cultural contexts than the more
radical formulation of ‘sexual
rights’.
14. ICPD Programme of Action,
Paragraph 8.25, United Nations,
1994.
15.Rance S, 1996. Maternidad
segm-a, abort0 inseguro:
impact0 de 10s discursos en las
politicas y en 10s servicios. Paper
presented at Saude Reprodutiva
na America Latina e Caribe:
temas e problemas. Caxambu,
Brazil. 5-7 October. A revised
version of this paper in English
was published as: Safe
motherhood, unsafe abortion:
a reflection on the impact of
discourse. Reproductive
Health Matters. 1997;
9(May):lO-19.
16.Vance C, 1996. Thinking sex,
gender and health. Paper
presented at Re-Conceiving
Sexualities: International
Seminar on Gender, Sexuality
and Sexual Health. Rio de
Janeiro. 13-18 April.
17. Fraser N, 1994. La lucha por las
necesidades: esbozo de una
teoria critica socialista-feminista
de la cultura politica de1
capitalism0 tardio. Propuestas 3:
Documentospara el Debate. Red
Entre Mujeres, Lima.
18. Santos B, 1996. Pela mao de
Alice. 0 Social na P&-
modernidade. Cortez Editora,
Sao Paulo.
19. ICPD Programme of Action,
Paragraph 7.3, United Nations
1994.
20. Contemporary debate on rights
has been marked by sharp
controversy regarding the
individualistic and liberal
(Lockean) tradition of rights as
opposed to collective rights, as
presented in Marxist
perspectives. These conflicts are
being resolved, at least at the
conceptual level, by some
feminists 171and theories such as
Foucault’s 1361. However, this
controversy can also be resolved
on the basis of the principles of
solidarity and the indivisibility of
human rights -individual, civil,
political, social, economic,
cultural and environmental.
These were legitimised in the
Vienna conference on human
rights (1993) and taken up again
at subsequent UN conferences.
21. In many aspects, the definition of
the ‘classical agenda’ emerges
parallel to the historical
trajectory of the workers’
movement, in its struggle for
human and political rights and
for social well-being.
22.These brief reflections
summarise the theoretical
framework of Boaventura dos
Santos, for whom the project of
modernity was initially
characterised by an equilibrium
between regulation and
emancipation. For Santos,
Foucault’s merit was to identify
the crucial tensions of
modernity: between citizenship
and subjectivity, between
change and increasing
regulation.
23. The contents of this section
were originally developed in
a previous article: Coi-rta S,
1996. Genera e sexualidade:
sistemas autonomos ou id&as
fora do lugar? Sexualidades
Brasileiras. Barbosa RM, Parker
R (eds). Relume Dumara,
Rio de Janeiro.
24. Parker R, 1990. Bodies, Pleasures
and Passions: Sexual Culture in
ContemporalyBrazil. Beacon
Press, Boston.
25. Rubin G, 1984. Thinking of sex:
notes for a radical theory of the
politics of sexuality. Pleasure and
Danger: Exploring Sexuality.
Vance C (ed). Routledge and
Kegan Paul, New York.
26. With different magnitudes, this
proposition can be found in Ill,
[81,[151 and [311. Petchesky
suggests that this trap is derived
from economism, which still
115
 underlies feminist intellectual
efforts regarding gender and
sexuality. This conclusion is
mainly based on a critical
evaluation of feminist discourse
in the developing world.
Dowsett, in turn, emphasises the
positive dimensions of bodies at
play in sexuality, conceptualising
sexual pleasure as a ‘big bang’.
He strongly suggests that the
power and extent of the means
of controlling sexuality are not
as extensive as Foucault
postulated. The two views
should not be taken as opposing,
but as two different perceptions
of the issues: North and South,
male homosexuality and
feminism.
27. Rubin G, 1975. The Traffic in
Women: Notes for a Political
Economy of Sex, Towards an
Anthropology of Women.
Columbia University Press, New
York.
28. Scott J, 1993.0 GBnero coma
Categoria Utilpara a Analise
Historica. SOS Corpo-Genero-
Cidadania, Recife.
29. Bourdieu P, 1996. Novas
reflexoes sobre a dominacao
masculina. GBnero e Saude.
Lopes J et al (ed). Artes Medicas,
Porto Alegre.
30. Gagnon J, 1996. Virtuous actions
in the absence of a compelling
dogma: reproductive health in a
socially constructed world.
Presented at Seminario
International sobre Avarices en
Salud Reproductiva. Colegio de
Mexico, Mexico DF. 15-18
November.
31,Villela W, Barbosa RM, 1996.
Repensando as relacoes entre
sexualidade e genera.
Sexualidades Brasileiras.
Barbosa RM, Parker R (eds).
Relume Dumara, Rio de Janeiro.
32. Weeks J, 1981. Sex, Politics and
Society: The Regulation of
Sexuality since 1800. Longman,
New York.
33. de Barbieri T, 1993. Gender and
population policies: some
reflections. Reproductive Health
Matters. l(May):85-92.
34. Dowsett G, 1996. Bodyplay:
corporeality in a discursive
silence. Paper presented at Re-
Conceiving Sexualities:
International Seminar on
Gender, Sexuality and Sexual
Health. Rio de Janeiro.
April 13-18.
35.Foucault M, 1982. Histdria da
sexualidade. A Vontade de Saber.
Graal, Rio de Janeiro.
36. Foucault M, 1984. Histdria da
Sexualidade II: 0 Uso dos
Prazeres. Graal, Rio de Janeiro.
37. Dowsett’s reflections are based
on research with homosexual
men, where gender plays a
distinct role and where there are
other influences on sexual
relations. It will be necessary to
rethink these perspectives in any
analysis and research on
sexuality between men and
women, and between women
and women.
38. Costa JF, 1996. 0 referente da
identidade homossexual.
Sexualidades Brasileiras.
Barbosa RM, Parker R (eds).
Relume Dumara, Rio de Janeiro.
39. The same perspective can be
found in other authors, eg.
Philippe Aries who suggests
that we should move towards a
form of unisexual&y(cited in
History of Private Life, Volume 5,
1996. Companhia das Letras,
SBo Paula).
40. Correa S, Petchesky R, 1994.
Reproductive and sexual rights:
a feminist perspective.
Population Policies Re-
Considered: Health,
Empowerment and Rights. Sen
G, Cermaine A, Chen L (eds).
Harvard School of Public Health,
Boston.

R&urn6 Resumen
L’auteur retrace ici l’evolution recente du Este ensayo da seguimiento a cambios recientes
discours sur la sexualite et la reproduction, et en 10s planteamientos sobre sexualidad y
definit des perspectives conceptuelles nouvelles reproduction, e identifica nuevas perspectivas
sur la sexualite et l’appartenance a l’un ou conceptuales sobre genera y sexualidad. En
l’autre sexe. Elle etudie d’abord l’etymologie de primer lugar, examina la,) etimologia de 10s
concepts recemment accept& comme legitimes - conceptos de aceptacion reciente (derechos
les droits en mat&e de reproduction et en reproductivos, salud sexual y derechos sexuales);
matiere de sexualite, la Sante sexuelle - qui, tout 10s cuales, a pesar de estar vinculados al con-
en etant lies au concept de Sante genesique, s’en cepto de salud reproductiva, se ubican en area
distinguent cependant. Elle considere ensuite le separada. En Segundo lugar, el estudio explora el
statut et la signification de ces termes dans la nivel y significado de esos terminos en el marco
perspective d’un ordre du jour de transformation de una agenda para la transformacidn social.
sociale. Enfin, elle se concentre sur de nouvelles Finalmente, se concentra en las nuevas con-
conceptualisations des sexes et de la sexualite, ceptualizaciones de1 genera y la sexualidad, y
et pro&de a une analyse pour savoir s’il est analiza la posibilidad real de diferenciar entre
possible de distinguer e&-e ces deux concepts. ambas ideas.

116

View publication stats