To my students, espccially

Chet, Dalia, and James

Tnn SocrAL \\/ W.

rvlrcrr
Norton & Company has been independent since irs founding in 1921,
tJ7arder Norton and Mary D. Herter Norton first published lec-
William
rrrls <k'livcrcd at the Peopie's Institute, the adult education division ofNew York
C oNsTRucrror\ oF,
(iity's Coopcr Union. The firm soon expanded its program beyond the Institute,
lrrrhlishing lrrxrks by celebrated academics from America and abroad. By mid-
( { rruly, tlrt two najor pillars of Norton's publishing program-trade books and

SnxuALrry ,olltllr'ttxts wt'rc firmly established. In the 1910s, the Norton family trans-
Icrrlil rorrttol ol llrt conrP;Lny to its employees, and today-with a staff of four
lrrrrr,lr,,l i,rr,l rr ,,,nrlr;rrirlrlc nrrrrlrr o{- tra,lt, collcgc, aml professional titles pub-
l,,,lr,,i ,,r, lr 1,r',rt V W Nrrrtrrl {\' ( (,lill,rrny slittttls lts tlrt, largcst ancl Oldesf
Second Edition 1',r ,lr.lrtr . lr,,rr',, ,,,vtr,,l rrlr,'lly l,\' rt,, r'rrrl,ll),r'r",

( i,l,\rqilrr ', 'lllll..'O()l l,y W W Nrrltolr & (.orrr1rrrry, lrrt.

All r r1ilrr,. tr',,r'rvr',1.

l'rrrrtrrl ur tlrc lJltittrl Stil((s ()l Arncrica.

STEVEN SEIDMAN I\l .rr rr rlrrr t L rt rr rg Iry 'l 'lrc (-ouricr Con.rpanies-\Testford
( r,r,r;rrsition lry (.rLtlry Lombardi
Srarr UNrveRsrry oF NEw yonx-ArsaNy l)r,rlrrr I iorr nrtnat:cr: Christine D'Antonio

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Seidman, Eteven.
Thc social construction of sexualiry / Steven Seidman. 2nd ed.
p.cm. -
t uc I udes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 97s-0-393-93402-1 (pbk.)
l, thx-Philosophy. 2.Gender identity. 3. Social role. 4. Heterosexuality.
l, Homorexuality, 6. Sexual ethics. I. Title.
HQr6.S{, 201o
)M;lQr-dc22
2009036156

W. W, Norton & Company, Ioc., J00 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110

E
rW. $7. Norron & Company
qrsrnorton.com
W, W. Noton & Company Ltd., Castle House, 71176'Wells
wlT 3QT
Street, Iondon

New York . London 234t67890


Chapter TWo
Soclal THnonlns op Snxunlrty:
MRnxrsM AND Fnmrrursu
ONr oE Kanr Manx's grear insights was rhat human nature is
shaped by sociery and changes historically. From this point of
view, sexuality can also be understood as something that is social
and historical.
Marxists argue that the economy is the most important sociar
[irr.'shaPilrg h.nran sociery. Every society is organizecl around a
slrt.i[i. t'r'.,lr.r'rrit' sysr('n]. Iironr trris 1;crslrcctive, a particular type
,1 t'r'.rr.rrry slrirlr.s rr s1rt.r'ilit scxrrirl crrlrrrre. ] will illtrstrate this
rivr'Iry rrrrrrirur r, irn irrralysis,ltrlre rcl.rionsl.rip between
Jx rsl)('(
r.irlrit lrl isrrr irrrrl sr,xrrrl ir y.,
A cal-,it:rlisr c(1).or)ry is .ric,tc<r t<lwarrr ;rrofit and economic
growth. Marx believed ttr;rt profir is hascd on exploiting labor;
growth occurs by reinvesting profirs back inro an enterprise.
Marxists distinguish two phases of capitalist deveropment in
Europe and rhe United States. Throughout the ninereenrh cen_
tury, a market-based capitalism was dominant; since the early
twentierh century, capiralism has been shaped by large corpora_
tions. The social organization of modern sexuality reflects this
development of capitalism.
In the market capitalist phase, the chief economic challenge
is to produce enough goods to meet rhe needs of the whole pop_
ulation. The answer ro the problem of production is discipline.
r3
II I ril Srx.lrU. (-()NsrItUC.TIoN oF Slxr;,tt_r.l.r.
I r r,,r, l.r l,r capitalism to flourish, a discilrlinecl la[>or firrt.c lnrrsr
I', rr',rrctl. Individuals are trained to adapt to rhc rhythnrs ol-a
r
'.r'.r.nr of lnass production rhat progressively strips work of indi-
rrnagination and skill. Ideally, capitalists would like to see
bccome almost machinelike. Anything that interferes
,.v rt lr nraximizing production, such as emotional
or erotic feeling,
impediment ro efficienr producrion. In short, in the market
r., rrrr
{'r ononry of the nineteenth century, capitalists tried to desexu-
,rlrzc laborers and fashion their bodies and physical movemenrs
ro rlrc machinery of production.
.lusr as workers are made into industrial laborers, business own-
,'r ,, lx'come capitalists. They learn to defer spending and to avoid
I l,r'r's()nal indulgence in order for their businesses to remain com-
;,r't irive. Although capitalism may flaunt rheir class status with acrs
,l t onspicuous consumption, rheir lives are fraught with anxiety.
'I'lrc market
is unpredictable, and competition is fierce. This drives
r irlriralists to become economically and socially disciplined.
ln a market economy, therefore, a repressed personality type
rs lrrominent. This kind of person is performance- and success-
r rrit.nted and exercises tight internal controls over emotions and
.,r'rrsrral desires.
To this rype of person, sexual impulses and de-
,,u('s .rre potentially disruprive of discipline; sexuality needs
to be
rrpir,lly controlled. Accordingly, in market economies the pres-
., r r r t.s of industrial production and discipline shape a sexual cu1-
t rr rr' t lrat values self-control and rhe avoidance of sensual pleasure.
lir ot it' play and pleasure are viewed as dangerous.
ll work occupies half the life of the laborer, the family is at
r lrl r t'rrrc:r of his or her nonworklife. However, the spirit of the
l;rlxrr lrrrx'css shapes the family by making workers into producers
 Socrar THEoRTES or Srxuerrry lj
of cliildren. Sexuality is valued onlyif it is confined to marriage
and its aim is ro cteate a family. The definition of legitimate sex
is narrowed to intercourse for the purpose of procrearion. Accord-
ing to Marxists, this procreative sexual ethic reflects capiralism,s
need for alarge, mobile supply of laborers.
In the market economies of the nineteenth century, a sexual
culture took shape that associated sex with marriage and chil_
T V rr
dren. Only geniral-centered, procrearion-oriented sex in marriage
was acceptable. Sex oriented to pleasure, sex outside marriage,
autoerotic sex, sex in public, nonheterosexual sex, and nongenital
sex were unacceptable and deviant. These forms of sexuality, Marx_
ists argue, were ar odds nith capitalism's need for disciplined,
work-oriented, procluctive workers.
ll('r wc(', r lr.,
ilrt'tcc,rh a.cl trventicth centuries, capitalism
slriltt'rl lrolrr ir rn:rrk.r to u (()rlx)ftrtc cconomy. The huge cofpo-
lrrr iorr lt'1rlir< trl r lrt' srrrirll Irtrsirrt.ss as thc major economic institu-
ti,rr. 'l'lris clt'vt'l<4'rrr-r.lrt [rrrLrglrt ,Ixlrrt clra.gcs in modern sexual
culture. I3y the c:.rly twcrrti.rh cclrtury, new technologies and a
scientific approach to rhe labor process solved the problem of
producing enough goods and services. A new problem confronted
capitalism: how could ir ensure that the vasr sea of goods now
being produced would be consumed?
Many corporarions looked to international markets and en_
listed rhe supporr of rhe governmenr to gain access and control
over Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In addition; capitalists
sought to expand the domestic market by bringing commerce
into areas ofdaily life such as leisure, recrearion, and entertain_
ment. For example, every aspecr of sports, from clothes to equip_
ment to the game itself, has gradually been commercialized.
It, 'l'r rrr Srx:trrr. (,crNs'mucrroN on Srxuerrry
{ ,rlrrrirlists also tried to convince individuals to want and con-
',rrrr('nrore goods. But how did this shift from production to
, rr l,,r I nrl)tion affect setuality?
M rrrxists argue that the new consumer economy weakened the
t orian culture and its emphasis on privacy, self-control, and the
,lt'scxr.ralization of the body and intimacy. Sfhereas Victorians
rv rslrc'cl to keep sex a private matrer, consumer capitalism brought
.,t,xrrirlity into the public world of commerce. In order to creare
lriglrcr levels of consumption, adverrising gained a new impor-
t,rrrtc. Sex is now used to sell commodities; the result is that
nr;rJl('s and talk of sex have gone public with a vengeance.
'l'lrc commercializatiooof sex challenged Vicrorian culture in
,u ro(lrer way: capitalism placed a new value on sex as a source of
l,lr':rstrre. As sex was used to sell commodities and sex businesses
llorrrished (porn, sex toys, phone sex), sex was no longer just a
|,r1)creative or loving act but a form ofpleasure and self-expression.
lirrrm a Marxist perspective, business owners want one thing: to
rrrirkc money by selling their goods. If sex can be marketed as
;,lcirsure or championed as an authentic form of self-expression
or itlcntity, then sex becomes a valuable marketing resource.
Some Marxists have emphasized the role of sexual fantasy in
rrrirr licting goods. To understand this dynamic we need ro grasp
'r
lliutl{e in the nature of commodities. Marxists argue rhar a com-
(
rrrrxlity has a "use value" and an "exchange value." Use value is
trlirt rrl to a commodity's utility, whereas exchange value concerns
rts lrri<'c. Capitalism tries to produce commodities that people
rvirrrt. 'l'here is an emphasis today on producing commodiries of
v;rr iorrs rnirtcrials, colors, textures, types, and models (such as with
(,us ()r r lothcs). The commodity is not iust amaterial object; it
,,ur('s sor iirl nrcaning as a marker of class or cultural identity,
 Socrar Tsronrrs or Srxuerrry 17 I tr I r ll 5r x tAt ( .( )Ns'ilil r(;'l t()N ()Ir SlxUaltTy

for example. The symbolic aspect of goods creares enormous
marketing potenrial. Many of us buy things ro presenr a certain
public identity or to indicare a parricular lifestyle. A style of
dress, grooming, or body piercing can communicate who we are
or how we wanr orhers to think of us. Our sense of self, Marxists
tightly connected to the goods we buy. Today, some
say, becomes
of our deepest wants and needs-to be considered powerful, sexy,
l)ronlotes a view ofsex as.natural, brings sex into the
:il(,nir, creates new sex industries, and champions sexual
;rrrtl lrlcasure. A capitalist sexual culture promotes tolerance,
tr wiults to make sex mote open and acceptable solely so that
, ,ur llc used to sell goods, to attach the individual to con-
and to turn people's attention to personal fulfillment
r ,r r lrrr t lran class inequality and political action.

and attractive-are closely connecred ro rhe goods we purchase N4;rrxists have developed a powerful social theory and a politi-
and display. Businesses deliberately market goods and services ,,rl rrr,vt'rneot that has altered the social landscape of many soci-
by selling fantasies of beauty, sexual porency, romance, and social , , r, '. A rrother social theory that l-ras resulted in considerable social
power. In short, Marxists make rhe compelling point that corpo- , lr.urri(' is feminism, wl-rich provicled the ideas and inspiratir.,n
rate capitalism creates a highly seductive and sexualized wodd in lrrr rlr| women'S movement.
which impulse reigns. Accordingly, a new personality rype sreps N{rrrry feminists have been sympathetic to both the ideas and
f irrwarcl :Ix'tl.r i stic, cxlrrcssivc, i mlrulsivc, and highly sexualized. r lr, l,rlitical goals of Marxism. Ttrey have, though, created their
(.,1'1r.r:rtt. t:rlrrtrrlis.r point of view. At the core of feminism is the
l)r()mot(,s a cultnre thar values sexual ' '\\,n lx)werful social
1>lt'irsrrrt'. S.xrirliry is rr.w vicw.cl as a,atural and positive basis r,[,r tlrat individuals are defined not only by their class position
,l scll-lrrllllIlrr.rrt. 'l'lrt. c.rrvt.rrrir)r).1 wisclon-r is that too much l,rrr rrlso by their gender status. Feminists point out that ail of
sell-control 1>nxlucrs lrsyclrological ancl social problems. To most rr'. ,rrt' introduced to the world as men or \vomen, regardless of the
Marxists, however, this lrlcastrrc-oricntcd sexual culture does not ,, orromiC System. not a
promote real sexual freedom. A cukure that celebrates a superfi- l r vls; ouf
cial drive for pleasure leads not to fulfillment but ro an aimless, argue thar afe not men or we
unhappy search for gratification. Moreover, sexuality focused on lrr r
Ilire these gender through a social process oflearn-
technique and performance comes to resemble work; accordingly, believe Elm
it loses much of irs tender, intimate, and caring qualities. Finally, , lr',,ttt's,
Marxists argue rhat as we search for personal happiness, the gross
inequalities between rhe rich and poor go unchallenged. There can I li ('l t. lt'r
'lir rhc extent that feminists view the division between men
be no real sexual freedom until there is,reai individual freedom, rlr(l worren as a product of social processes, they approach sexu-
T
which is impossible under capitalism. ,rlrry irr sercial terms. Feminists propose that individuals acquire
Marxists argue, then, rhar a consumer-oriented economy has ir rlxrnl nilture as they develop a gender identity.
clccisively shaped conremporary parrerns of sexuality. Consumer W lrirt (:xlrctly is the relationship between gender and sexuality?
lr, rrrrrririr lrlrspcctives range from the assertion that the relation-
 'il Irrr l.rx tnl (.()Ns'r'nt;<_-tt()N olr Srxuattry
Socrar TnroRrEs on Snxuerrry 19

ship berween gender and sexuality almost ovedap to the r,,n,r/,irn()lrs rlran men, who are on avefage more psychologically
view that
there is considerable slippage between gender and sexuality. ,11,;,r ,.,r'rl ro tlisassociate sex from intimacy.
In Tbe Reproduction of Mothering, Nancy Chodorow offers |r'r tnost girls and boys become heterosexual because mod-
a
psychoanalytical feminist view thar craims a ',r rr 11'1 95 are organized around the norm of heterosexuality
tight link berween
f

gender and sexuality., She argues that in societies thinks boys and gids take different paths to heterosex-
in which women
do the chief parenting work, rhe patterns of self_formarion . ltrr boys, their primary love relation with their mothers
are
differenr for boys than for girls. According to Chodorow, r il.rl((,s a Strong heterosexual desire. Moreover, boys are pressured
these
gender differences shape sexualiry in profound ways. t u r, k'rrtify strongly with the masculinity of their farhers, which
For both boys
and girls, rheir morhers are the primary sources of love r', ,r,,,;,x with heterosexuality. By conrrast, gids' intimate ries
iated
and the
chief oby'ecrs of rheir desires. However, girls sustain an rrr 1111.i1 mothers make the accomplishment of heterosexuality
intimacy
with their mothers throughour their maruration; boys have rrr,,r'r' rr<)mplex. Although girls are encouraged to shift the focus
ro
separare from their mothers at an early age in order .l t l rcir desire from the mother to the father, he is often a remore
to acquire a
nrasculine identity and learn to be men. This difference
sl.rapes I lrlirrrr'. Accordingly, girls' heterosexual identification may be
rlrt. 1'rsychost.xrral characrcr <lf girls and boys. lnrol ionally weak. 'Women will likely be more open to bisexu-
(.lr.rkrr.rv irrrr.('s rh.t rrrr. t. thc irtcnse intimacy between
,r lrr y and homosexualiry and approach sexual identity as more of

rrrrtlrt'rs rrrrtl ,l;rrr{lrrt'rs,,qirrs rrcvcro| tr ,r , lroice than will boys.

rrsychc rhat has porous
t'g. lxlt,rtlrrrit's arr<l is *.lirri,lrshilr-,ric.rcd. Accordingly, (.hodorow's perspective is important because she assumes thar
women
tcncl to conn.ct scx witlr intimacy and valne it as a rt'xrrality emerges in the course of individual development. The
means of shar-
ing and caring. STomen will aiso tend to be less gen.iral_ lirrrrily plays a crucial role in the making of the sexual self. Also,
and
pleasure-oriented and more person- and emorion-oriented ,,lrr itrsists that our gender identity shapes our sexuality in pro-
than
men. !7omen tend to approach sex more as a means lrrrrrrrl ways. As boys and girls experience different parent-child
of communi_
cation and inrimacy rhan as a vehicle for erotic pleasure. ,lyrr:rrnics, they will have somewhat different sexual values and
Because
boys typically break shaqply from their morhers at ulrcrrlirtions.
an early age and.
( )t hcr
feminists have also tightly linked gender and sexr.rality.
rarely establish an intimate bond with their farhers, rhey
have rigid
ego boundaries and are more goal-oriented. Accordingly, Itr rr vt'ry influential essay, "Compulsory fleterosexuality and
rheir
sexuality tends to be more pleasure_ and performance_oriented. l,t'slrilrr [xistence," Adrienne Rich argues that we arc all taught
Men can, of course, experience intimacy, but they will il r rt I t ot'r"c.cd into adopting cooventional gender identities.r More-
likely ex_
press sexual lovedifferently rhan do women. For example, men ovrt, irr nrost societies, being a respectable man or woman means
might approach love primarily in terms of rhe giving and lrt'irrg lrctcrrosexual. Shaping individuals into men and women
receiv_
ing of erotic pleasure or orgasmic satisfaction. Furthermore, r\,lro ;uf irlso cxclusively heterosexual is a complex social process.
be_
(irus(, women connecr sex to intimacy, they
will tend to be more
 Ittt ',,x l.{l ( ()Nsll{11( ll()N ()l; SliXtJALll'Y
Socrar Tsronrrs or, Srxuerrry 21

Individuals become hererosexual nor only rhrough rt .,r |, | | | r r, lr.r., l, st.x is saicl to be the very basis of male domination.
positive in_
ducements, such as economic incentives and
the cultural roman-
1,, 111, 1 \tr.lt tlrirr rncn have the power to define what desires,
ticizing of hererosexuality, but also through punishments, t, rllrr,:. ,rrr,l lrr'lrirvirlrs are sexual, they have the power to define
such
asridicule, harassment, and violence toward gender !i,,1, rr '. ',r'xrrirlity in a way that gives them control over women.
rebels and
nonheterosexuals. However, Rich believes
rhat the social pres_
lnl r,urr1'lr', rlr rttaie-dominated America, so-called normal women

sures that creare a gender_divided, compulsory ,rrr '.rl'1,o,(.(l to be oriented toward vaginal intercourse with the
heterosexual order
are concealed by ideologies rhar assert rrlrrrrr,rrt ,rrrrr oltprocreation. This view of sexuality defines women
the naturainess ofhetero_
sexuality. For example , many Europeans and r', { ,,., rr r,rlly heterosexual and
as motivated, by their very nature,
Americans hold to
the belief that humans are naturally divided tr,l,r rrtot ltt'fS.
into men and women,
that there is a biological attraction berween rhe ',rr, lr lt'rrrinists as Rich and Mackinnon approach sex as fun-
sexes, and that
men's and women's bodies and minds are narurally ,1,r, rrr.,lly social and political. In particular, they claim that
complemen_
tary. Accordingly, heterosexuality is understood rlr, r, r\,('sscnce of q,hat is called sexuality--{esires, fantasies,
as an extension
of a narural order composed of two distinct human l,l, ,r'.r rrr',,, 1s1.s5-16y621s the male wish for control and dominance.
rypes: men
and women. ',, orr.rl ,lt'sircs and behaviors in male-dominated societies are said

However, Rich argues thar throughout history, rr, lr. rr'lrrtccl to gender struggles. From rhis perspective, femi-
there have
always been women who have chosen to rr'.r.. , r it icize the notion that women's sexual liberation is about
remain single or who have
challenged gender norms. In particular, rhere \\',,rr( n tlaiming the freedom to do as they please, an approach
have been women
who have organized rheir lives around orher rlr.rr lx;rl'r.sses men's view of sexual freedom. Instead, women's
women. Rich makes
the controversial claim that women who choose '., rrr,rl lilx.ration involves women fashioning a sexual life that
to create lives
around other women are lesbians. Lesbianism rr llrr r,, rlrcir own needs, feelings, and desires. The point is not
is not fundamen_
tally a sexual desire or identity. Rather, Rich says r,, lrl,r'r;rrc sexualiry from social control, which could lcad t<r
that being a
lesbian means choosing to make a primary r!'rr vr)l(.nce or unwanted pregnancy, but for women to claim
social and emotional
commitmenr ro women. Becoming a lesbian is political rl,' 1,,,\v(.r'to define their own sexual desires and fasl-rion tlreir
a act, as ir
cleclares women's independence from men. ,,\r n ,.r xrr;rl-intimate lives.
The lesbian is a woman
who defines her own wants and desires and :,r'nr( l('rrinists, such as anthropologist Gayle Rubin, have
makes other women
t lrc f<rcus of her life. r rlrt, r rt'r I r o the view that sexuaiity is a direct expression of gen-

lluilding on rhe work of Chodorow, Rich, and other '1, r l(rrlrur rrrllues tirat tiris perspecrive ignores considerable
feminists,
(.irtlrcrine Mackinnon \,u r,rr r()rr rvir Irirr women s and men's
s&ualities. Rubin tries to
also insists on the tight binding of gen_
,L'r'iurtl scxuality.a Specifically, Mackinnon urrrlr'r,.r.rrr,l scxrrality as connected to gender, yet as also having
views sexuality as a
|'rrrlrrr ( .Lrcn's power, and sex as a means by which men control
 Socrar Tnroxrrs or Srxueury 2l IIr \rx tAt (.()Ns|trU(_'rt()N oF Slxuat_l.l.r.

its own dynamics. This suggests rhar rhe concepr of gender lt.rrrirriniry with purity and maternal feelings; still,
,r',,.,,, r,rt(',r
can_
not be rhe basis for a comprehensive theory of sexuality. l,r'lr;rviols are disrespecred for both men and women. Those
In "Thinking Sex," Rubin makes the case that sex is fundamen_ will be srig-
irr such behaviors, regardless of gender,
tally about erotic desires, fantasies, acrs, idenrities, and politics_ ;rrrtl subject to ridicule and at times criminalization.
none of which are reducibre to gender dynamics. "It is
essenrial ;,oint is simply that gender influences patrerns of sex-
to separate gender and sexuality analytically,,' she writes. ..This lrrrr rhat rhere is still a great deal about the organization
goes against the grain of much conremporary ,lI'rr,rrrrics of sexuality that cannor be grasped solely through
feminist thought,
which rrears sexuality as a derivation of gender. For instance, l, rr,, of gender.
lesbian feminist ideology has mostly analyzed. the oppression
of I
Iesbians in terms of the oppression of women. However,
les_
bians are aiso oppressed as queers and perverts, by rhe
operation
of sexual, nor gender, srrarification.,,t
In ltubin's view, all socieries creare sexual irierarchies that
.stablislr b.tr,clarics bcrrvcen go.d a,d bacl or legitimate and
illir ir s.xrurliri.s. S.r'it'rics crassiry certain desires, acts, and iden-
titit,s rrs lrrl,rrrrl, rr,s1.,r.ct.[rlc, g'<ld, hcalrl.ry, and moral; other forms
.1 st:xu.lily art' clirssiliccl ,s u,rrcaltl-ry, abnormar, sinfur,
and im-
moral. Socictics slrl)lx)rr and privilcgc ,.normal and good,,
forms
of sexuality and punish rhose clcfincd as ,,abnormal and bad,,
through law, violence, ridicule, or stigma. This sysrem of
sexual
regularion applies to both men and women. American
society
considers hererosexuality, monog amy, marriage, and reproduc_
tive sex ro be good and normal; it defines and rreats S/M (sadism
and masochism), commercial, public, and multiple_partner
sex
as bad, Tliere are, of course, many sexualities thar
fall somewhere
in between-for example, promiscuous heterosexuals and gays
and lesbians in long-term monogamous relationships.
It may be
less socially acceprable for a woman than for a man
to have mul_
tiple sex parrners or ro engage in S/M because ofa gender
order
 ',' I I 1l ( I r[-.],, I t(| r( I t( )N ()t; St,xttlr.t't.t,

l,rr rors tlrrrt cxlrlaincd why some behaviors or identi-

Chapter Three \1 r'\v('(l lrositivc:ly and other ones were seen as deviant.
Soclnl CorusrnucrroNrsM: r lrcy tli<l rrot incluire why certain feelings, desires, acrs,
Soctor,ocv, Htsrony, AND putt.,osoptty ( iun(' to be viewed as sexual at all.
,,,rr iologists and social scientisrs argued for a more thor-
vicw of sexualiry. In the United States,John Gagnon
Simon proposed a "script" theory of sexuality.'In-
Manxsu AND FEMTNTsM have challenged biological and narrow nl un.lcrstanding humans as being born sexual, they argued

psychological approaches to sex. They have also been influential ',,'xu,rlity is socially learned. In the course of growing up, we
in shaping new social approaches ro sex, in parricular through t,rrrlilrt Iry society what feelings and desires counr as sexual and

the work of sociologists, historians, and philosophers who have ,r r. t lrr. rppropriate scripts for sexual behavior. Sexual scripts
pioneered rhe rethinking of sexualiry. rvlr.t't', when, and with whom (based on Age, race, or class) we
sociologisrs have been at the forefront ofresearching sex from to have sex, and what it means when we do. Gagnon

as.ci.l Pcrsl:,ccrive. .Sincc tl'rc early decades of rhe twentieth cen- srrggested that sexuality is not an inborn property but

tury, s.t'i.l.gisrs lrirvc strrcli.cl parrcrns of heterosexuality. They o[ social labeling

havt' r.sr.:rrt'lrt,cl rlrc r.lc .l'rcligion, gcncler, class, race, and social lrr llritrrin, sociologist Ken Plummer further developed a label-
valrrcs in shiqri.g l)arrcn)s of lrremariral, marital, and extramarital rrrr, |{ r,,1xr tive. InSexaa/ Stignu, he argued that individuals are not
sex. Ira Reiss, a major sociologisr of scxr-rality | ,.r r r lr.r n( )SCxual but learn to be homosexual.r An individual may
in the 1960s and
i970s, charted cultural and behavioral sl-rifts among American l, , I , lr',, rr t lirr or attracrion to people of the same sex, but he or sl-re

youth during a rime when sexual morality rhat associated sex lrrr'.r lr'.ur) tl-rat these feelings are sexual and thar they indicate a
exclusively with marriage gave way ro one thar permitted sex in a l,,rr,,,r'xu:rl identity. People learn this in the course <lf intc-racting
context of affecrion.' Reiss believed rhar this cultural change was " ,r lr I ,, rr lr r lrc straight and gay worlds. For example, a high school
related ro women's increasing economic and social power. In this lrt'rrring derogatory comments abour "fags" and "dykes"
regard, he observed the decline ofa double standard that had per_ ro associate homosexuaiity with a stigmatized identity
mitted men ro have sex outside'of 'marriage .,,r rc ndividual may eventually be exposed rc a gay subculture
while it labeled
rr i

women who engaged in the same behavior as ,.bad
girls.,, The work
of $-eiss and many other sociologists was important because it doc_
umented the social character of sexual conduct. However, sexual
practices that were not heterosexual or were not oriented to mar-
riage were often treated as deviant; few sociologists investigated
ilt
, lr,rrrrlrions a view of homosexuality as natural and good.
( l rc ol t hc
lricneers of a sociological approach to sexuality was
iologist Jeffrey N7eeks.a He introduced the ideas of
sot
"('-i!r'r rt rrr l isrrr " arrd "constructionism." Essentialism is the notion
tlr.rt',r rrr,rlrll, is rr lrasic and essential of hurnan. Con-

25
 Socrer CoNsrnucrroNrsu '!ili t,1t ( .( )Ns I Rl Jc'l'l()N ol, .SIxUAl_try
27

structionism states thar is a learned way of tlrr.rruglront history. A lesbian or gay identity is a
and acting. lfeeks proposed a strong view ofthe social character
$i{'i"g il{)( ir natural, faCt.
of sexualiry: rlrrrc is alarge body of hisrorical research offering varied
o[' homosexuality. Independent scholar Jonathan
- Fitst . . . we can no longer ser "sex', against ..society', as if they
l,rrxltrced two pioneering books, Gay American History
were separare domains. Secondly, there is a widespread recogni-
t,,tyll"eshian Alntanac, in which he documented the chang-
tion of the social variabiliry of sexual forms, beliefs, ideologies,
<lf'homosexualiry in the United States.' He found
and behavior. Sexualiry has . . . many histories. . . . Thirdly
... l,r'r w(,cn colonial times and the 1970s, the meaning of homo-
we musr learn to see thar sexualiry is somerhing which
society r lranged from a behavior (sodomy), ro a rype of gender
produces in complex ways. It is a result of diverse social prac-
(invert), to an abnormal personality (the homosexual),
tices rhat give meaning to human activities, ro struggles
between those who have power to define and regulate, and
lrr,rlly to an affirmative social identity (gayilesbian)
those
rvho resisr. Sexuality is nor given, ,r ;rath-breaking article, "The Female \World of Love
it is a producr of negoriarion,
stnrggle.' Relations between \7omen in Nineteenth-Century
" historian Carroll Smith-Rosenberg made a powerful
W.t,ks lr.r .rrly 1,r,1xrsccl s.cial constr.ctionism as a theory but lor historical approach to sexuality.'She documented that
;r

irls, rt'st'irrclrc<l rlrt'r.lc,,f-rrc<ricar and scientific rdeas in creating lrvls of most (white, middle-class) Victorian women were very
tlr. irlt', ,f tlr. lr.rrr.scxrrL.l ,,rrrrrl.rr.. 'l'heir lives were focused on household and domestic tasks;
as a crisrinct sociar identity.6
As \wccks wzrs rcscarching scxual ident.ity as a social and his-
r children and took responsibility for maintaining the
lrr'1, ririsrrd

torical evenr in England, Amcrican historians wrshed to explain r'lrlirous lriety and moral well-being of the family. As a result,
the rise of a homosexual identity in the united States. This rlrr',.r, wonren often formed close ties with each other. These inti-
re-
search paralleied the rise of gay and lesbian movements rrr,rt,' lronds sometimes developed into romantic relationships
in Amer_
ica and in mosr European nations. In the 1970s and 19g0s, rhe rvln' ;>ublic and celebrated as complemenrary ro marriage
convenrional view among gay acrivists was thar homosexuals we cannot be sure if these "romanric friendships" were
have always existed, but, because of homophobia and heterosex_ rrr t[.re modern sense, they were often lifetime committed
ism, they have never been acknowledged. Activists and scholars
sought to document homosexuals' existence throughour history on the work of Katz and Smith-Rosenberg, Lillian
and their contribution to civirization. If homosexuals have crafted pioneering histories of sexuality. e In S urpas s ing
been
valuable contributors to tWesrJrn culrure, shouldn,t thev
be ac_
Ln'of Mcn,Faderman studied romantic friendships between
cepted? The new history of sexualiry challenged this
uppro"ch. rvlric h were common in Europe for centuries. Faderman
llistorians argued thar the very meaning of same_sex behavior ,rl',rr rvrrrrl tIrt'first historyof lesbianism in the UnitedStates,Odd

Socrer CoxsrRUCTroNrsM 29
Girls andTwiligbt Both Smith-Rosenberg and Faderman
Loaers.
make the unexpected argument that, between the late nineteenth
and early twentierh centuries, tolerance for intimacy between
women actually decreased. As women started to attend college,
work outside the home, and demand equal rights, those women
who also chose to live independently of men were ar times
stigmatized
as lesbians.
Building on this growing body of historical scholarship on
sexuality, John D'Emilio offered the first detailed analysis of rhe
rise of homosexual politics in the
u'ited Stares. rn Sexual politics,
sexaal comnzunitia, he analyzed the social forces that shaped homo-
sexuality into an identity,
community, and asocial movement.,o
a
Iior example, D'Emilio argued that \iTorld \War II played a key
role i, shaping an awareness of Lromosexuality and in creating
Ir.rrr.s.xrral [r<ln<ls. I)rrring thc war, many soldiers were, for the
llrst tirrrc, t'x1'r<lscrl t. inclivicluals who thougrrt of rhemselves as
Ir.nr.scxu,l. Mrlrc.vcr, rhc intcnse cl.seness among the men and
women in the military cncour.rged some sexual experimenration.
After the war, many of these men and women with homosexual
feelings settled in Chicago, New york, San Francisco, and Los
Angeles. It was in these ciries that the first major gay and les_
bian political organizations inirially took shape. D'Emilio rraces
the rise of gay liberationism in the late i960s.
By the 1990s, an impressive body of historical research on
sexuality had accumulated. Historians have continued to refine
their conceptions of the sexual pasr. One significant revision is
George Chauncey's Gay New york.r, $Thereas historians and soci_
ologists had come to believe that the modern homosexual emerged
in the early twentieth cenrury and was immediarely closered,
(-hauncey argues that
in working-class New york, individuals
'r, x rAr (.()Ns'r'Rti(.'tt()N oF sllxLlAI_t't'\,
n()r as either heterosexual or homosexual, bur
"rrrrrrlrl men" or "fairies." The former were masculine
l;rrr('l'were effeminate. In other words, the homosex-
ir rype of gender deviance. A masculine rnan who
rvrtlr effeminate men was nor necessarily considered a
(iender expression, not sexual preference, defined
ir lrornosexual. Moreover, rarher rhan being closeted, gay
openly in bars, taverns, speakeasies, restauranrs,
rrncl parks
',,r, rolorists and historians have produced an impressive body
that documents changes in the meaning and social
of homosexuality, changes rhat have shifted rhe way we
rrlx)rrt sexuality. But the work of philosophers is equally
, lty fhr the most important theorist of sexuality has been
lrh i losopher Michel Foucault.'2
tlrcrc is one main idea in Foucault's writings, it is thar
created sex." Foucaulr challenged the view ofsexolo-
r.r'.r,..ur(l psychologisrs rhar sex was something fundamenrally
and natural. \We recall that these scientists claimed
, hirrted the true nature of human sexuality. Foucault pro-
t lrrrtit was the very idea-or, in his rerm, rhe discourse-
'.,,.rt,rli ty that created what we today know as sex. In other
w('ure not born sexual; rather, we learn to be sexual be-
llrrs occurs only in societies that have created the idea of
wlrt'n did this idea of sexualiry originate, and why?
cxlrlanation begins with the early Chri_stian practice
'l'her Christian
dury to confess sinful desires com-
rrr,lrvirluals to approach their erotic feelings as having
rrrr',rrrirrg. Individual Christians began to analyze their
 l! | llt ',o, t,1 I ( oN\ililJ('il()N ()tr SIixUALIf-y
Socrar CoNsrnucrroNlslr 31

scnsual desires and pleasures as a parh =rrl, l\ t,,l,,tr ,l l,,,, llr.s, iurrl uses judgments about what is nofmal
ro self_knowledge and
moral purity. r,, r,rr,,l ,r, lrvr.lr,rls. Disciplinary control relies ress on the
,

If chrisrianconfessional pracrices provided the inirial im- l.,,H. t t,, r(.tr:.()1. irrrcl silence individuals than on the power of
pulse to think ofour eroric feelings as a separare sphere invested
i!,,nrr!rIr,'rrrri r,lt'rrs r. shape individuals
into productive and con-
with moral .significance, the birth of the science of sexuarity in r r,,ll,rl ,lr ,rli( rr s. Scxuality is
at the core of disciplinary control.
the nineteenth century was the cruciar modern event. Scientisrs L,rrr r.llrrrli 1x..1rle's sexual feelings, behaviors, and identities

aimed to discover the hidden truth of human narure by
uncov_
ering rhe secrers of rhe sexual instinct. These scientists wished
to lay bare the basic principles of sexualiry-its normal progres-
sion and its pathologies. Sexologists charted the physiology
of
sexual desire and its varied pracrices whire psychiarrists
ristened
to their ciients confess a shadowy world of sexual fantasies, and
demographers surveyed human fertiiity. Bur these researchers
did
not discover an uncharted rerritory ofsex; they fashioned human
pleasures, excitarions, and acts into a new object of knowledge
and social regulation: human sexuality. Foucault is nor
saying
that the feelings and behaviors associated with rhe body are
cre_
ated by rhese discourses. Rather, as a resulr of these new
dis_
courses, these bodily experiences are now viewed as expressions
of human sexuality-as indicating a sexual type and a normal
or pathological sexuality. In other words, the science ofsexual_
, r,rl. , ,, ; u r,,,, rlrlr, ir grear deal of social control over their bodies and
,r, r r,,r.. liorrr irrrlr thought that sexuality had become a crucial
l,.rr r ,l rlrr. rvrry modern societies control their citizens.
',r rrrrrrl, lioucault believed that the modern state and
other
,,, r.rl rrr,,r rrrrli<lns had good reasons to want to control people,s
, ,.,r.rlr 1 llt,lween the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, in
*r.rrry. l'rr()l )(,tn nations, large numbers of people were migrat_
rr,r t,, I rrrt.s; there was an increasing need for mass literacy and
.', lr,,"lrrrll ;rlr<i a growing dependence
of national power on eco_
,',nr, l,r()\l)crity. These developments created a strong politi_
, ,rl ,rr.r(,:,1 i, gaining accurate, detailed, and useful information
,rl,r,rrr lrurrr;ul bodies-how they reproduce, stay healthy, react
r
" ,lrll.r(.rt r.xternal stimuli, and can be made more productive,
,llr, rr nt, ,rxr1>erative, and so on. For example, as cities became
',, 1,11 ,111,1rr<lnomic centers, govefnments and other institutions

ity organized and unified our diverse somaric experiences into a r, ;,rrrr,.rl,lt,f<lr keeping order and for the care of the needy ancl
,,r,111,r .,.rrght information about nutrition, health, migration
111
coherent entity called sexua/ity.
Why did a discourse of sexuality appear and what was its l,.rr tr I I r,., ,rlrr I Iertility rates. This growing need to understand and

social importance? Foucault advanced a twofold answer. First,

,,,rrrrl 1,,, lir.s helped to creare the idea of sexuality. A society
he
I lr,rr , ,rr , .rrr r.l sex can manage the behavior
argued that these discourses are par-. of the rise of what of individuals and
he calred a
,lisciplinary society. In the military, churches, hospitals, r* lr,lr I'olrrrl;rl ions.
factories,
:rrr<l schools, a | ,rrr ,rrrIr I*lic'ved that patterns of sexual control have changed
rype ofsocial organization developed that exercises
st rir.l rrlnrrol over our bodies, aims to carefully manage those r, r r rr r lr'r r :,r x it'r ics. In the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries,
bod-
rr',' irr slrrt'r'and time, invorves a great deal of surveillance and ,r'il r r,r,'ir rv,r., rlrt' lix'r-rs of social regulation. Sex outside of marriage
til
Socrar CoNsrRucrroNrsu
was proscribed and the emphasis
wirhin marriage was on procre-
ation. Social institutions aimed to channel individual sexuality
into marriage and families. This focus changed during rhe course
ofthe nineteenrh and twentieth centuries. Social institurions no
longer concentrated solely on sex in irs relation to marriage; they
took an interest in a wide range of sexual behavior-in young
people's sexuality, in homosexuality, and in heterosexual behav-
ior outside of marciage. Furthermore, whereas the state and the
family were rhe key agents of social control in the past, today med-
ical and scienrific institutions, the criminal jusrice system, and
the mass media play key roles in regulating sexual behavior.
Foucault's perspecrive heips to explain why many Europeans
and Americans are preoccupied with their own sexuality
tlr:rr of rhcir fricnds, neighbors, and public figures. Sex has be-
(.onrc sonrcrlrirrg wr: rhink of as basic ro self-identity; it is often
rrrrtlcrsr<locl as tlrc hi<lrlcn rrlrrh of who we are.
l)icl lirLrcarrlt givc u1r rhe norion of sexuai freedom? He wrote
during a period ol'sexual rebellion in which many individuals
and movements believed tl-rar a new era of sexual freedom was
beginning. Sexual liberationists ofall rypes saw the past as a dark
period ofrepression due to ignorance. They declared that, in con-
trast, we had become more enlightened; for them, the present was
full of possibilities for sexual freedom. Sexual liberation had two
aspects. The first was a negarive freedom---escape from unnec-
essary conrrol, so people might exercise sexual choice. The second
was a posiriys flssdqrn-the right to express one's true sexual
nature and identity.
Foucault agreed that expanding individual choice and pro-
moting sexual variation were good things. In this regard, he sup-
;rorted the fight for gay rights. But gay rights is nor liberation.
( oN\ | I( t l( .t t( )N ()t; SIjx ual_t.t.t,
33
rrr, livi<lrrals of a horrific srigma and frees them from
Yct it leaves in place a sysrem of sexuality
yxr4rlc's desires and feelings, forces them to declare
cxt lrrsive sexual identity, and divides sexual feelings
rronrral and abnormal. For all the good it has done,
n)ovemenr has reinforced a system that forces indi-
themselves either straight or gay, and it poten-
lriscxuality into deviant sexual identity. Moreover, a
a
has its own ideal of how a gay person is supposed
ir( t. In other words , the gay movement exercises con_
rts rnembers, pressuring them to identify exclusively as
( in ways that are recognized as gay
rrr ;rt
is today tightly linked to a sysrem ofsocial conrrol,
and
sexual liberation might involve freeing ourselves
i.lca of sexualiry. This would mean approaching our
and acts nor as expressions of sexuality but as sim-
and acts rhat give pleasure, create social ries, or act
r)rrr( (, of cultural creativiry. Foucault advocates a politics
,,r'xrrality-zgainst sexualizing selves, identities, and
acts.
worrlcl this be a good thing? If society did not assign a
rncirning (either normal or abnormal) to adulr, consensual
r lcsircs and behaviors, individuals would be subject ro con-
Icss social regulation. For example, instead of revers-
of homosexuality by championin g a normal gay
irt r'rlrding to Foucault we should approach homosex-
as a desire and as a source oferotic pleasures, new
arrd culturai expressions. Instead of celebrating the
ol-the human body and all of its feelings and sensa-
it would be more liberating to desexualize plea-
lrx u\ ()n lr<lnsexual pleasures, learn to enjoy a wide range
 Socral CoNsrnuc-noNrsn
35
ofsensual pleasures, and be free ofcontrols thar rely on norions
of normality. To the exrenr that sexuality is tighrly intertwined
with social 6qn61ei-fo1 example, with advertising or with judg-
ments of good and normal 6h2126;s1-to be against sexuality is
to support individual freedom.
Foucault has shaped rhe field ofsexual studies in far-reaching
ways. Yet his work has also been challenged. In particular, crirics
believe that Foucault did not go far enough in analyzing sexual
identity. Alrhough Foucault argued that sexual identities are
social and historical, he did not address the way sexual idenri-
ties vary by gender, race, class, and age. For example, in male-
dominated societies the social parrern of homosexuality differs
between men and women; accordingly, Iesbians may have a sorre-
wlurt clifferenr history tl-ran gay men. l-urthermore, the varied
historics o{'gays ancl lesbians are furrirer differentiated by such
lactors ils racc or c'lass. Ilistorians and sociologists have begun
to sort oLlt tltcsc {acr()rs. lioucault is also criticized for failing to
cxplain how sexr-ral iclentirics arc created and susrained in every-
day life. He assumed that discourses of sexual identity are some-
how brought into social institutions and mainsrream culture,
which in turn shape individual idenrities. How exacly individ-
uals create sexual identiries and what social forces exact pressure
to sustain these idenrities are key questions left unaddressed by
Foucault. These questions became a focus for scholars in rhe 1990s
as attention turned to quesrions of identity and politics.
Among those who have rhought hard about rhe quesrion of
identity, perhaps none has been more influential than philosopher
Judith Butler. InGmder Trouble,Burler proposed a "performative"
theory of gender idenrity rhat has proven to be very useful for
analy ztng sexual identi ty.' r
ilr ( .( )Ns l Rl r(."t'tolt ot. Stxuarrty
r lr,rr rlirt rrrc has creared two distinct, opposing gen-
,111, I y71y1y1g11-has been basic to N7estern cul-
-odbr.,
is lrromoted in law, science, and popular culture,
ol thc common beliefs of probably mosr Ameri-
But where does rhis belief come from? Is
lrolrls that the idea thar narure has created two dis-
human types should nor be uncritically accepred.
{ r)rnc to believe this view, she says, because we live in
rrr',rianized around hererosexuality, marciage, and the
Viewing men and women as narurally differenr
makes heterosexuality-a1d therefore also
the heterosexual family-seem like rhe natural,
right way of living. This explains why there is so
for men who act feminine or women who act mas-
[\1r'rr irnd women who challenge gender roles threaten rhe
ol lrt,rcrosexuality and the primacy of marriage and the
l,rrrrily
of compulsory heterosexuality may help ro explain
divide individuals into two gender types, bur ir
lxlrlain how gender identities are creared and sustainecl
have explained the making of gender idenriry
k';rrned or forced upon individuals. Butler asks us to
in theatrical rerms as a kind of performance.
rrp in a soeiery that classifies feelings, behaviors,
l,lcs in gender rerms, as appropriate either for men
wc' learn nor only whar our gender is supposed to
lrow to act in gender-correcr ways. Through a mostly
l.irrrring process, and by means of a system of rewards
,';r< lr o{.us learns to present him- or herself as either
 Socrer CoNsrRUCTroNrsM 37
a man or a woman. \7e come to know, almost without thinking,
what gestures, styles of dress and grooming, and ways of walking
and talking are considered normal for men and women. If a male
"masculine"-if his posrure, talk, friends, dating, and jobs
acts
conform to masculine norms-his gender identity as a man will
be taken for granted. If a male acts "feminine," he will still be
viewed as male but he may be considered an "abnormal" man.
Furthermore, Butler argues that as we conform to gender
norms, others will likely interpret our behavior as expressing a
core gender identity. For example, most of us would probabiy
assume that a male who looks and acts like a man (for instance, is
aggressive, competitive, and decisive) is a man and that this status
is basic to his identity. In other words, his masculine actions are
trnclcrstrxlcl as cxpressing a deepiy rooted gender identity. How-
t'vcr, Ilrrtlc'r srrggcsts that thcre is no core gender identity that
<lrivt's orrr lx'lravior. I{arhc'r tharr viewing our gender performances
as cxprc'ssilrg an irrncr gcnclcr idcntity, she says that these behav-
iors arc modelccl aftcr imagcs of what it means to be a woman or
man that we learn from our families and other institutions. The
illusion of core feminine and masculine gender identities con-
ceals the social and political forces that shape us into gendered
and sexual beings. Similarly, the ideology of a natural gender order
conceals the role of gender in the perpetuation of heterosexual
dominance.
The idea ofgender as a performance has been used by researchers
of sexual identity.'a Rather than approaching gay, straight, or
bisexual identifications as stable, core identities that moti-vate our
behavior, a performance approach emphasizes sexual identity as
a process. \We fashion and project our identities by our actions.
Accordingly, researchers analyze the micro-dynamics of identity
( .( )Ns'r'r{l r(:'t t()ru or SExuALt.I-y
l',,r rxirrrrplc, they try to explain which behaviors and
,r,, , lotlrt's, cars, homes, furniture, and eyeglasses)
.,r1irrsol scxual identity and why. How do individ-
r lrl skills to read each orher's behaviors in terms of
t ltc'gories? A performative approach to sexual iden-
rror bc interpreted as saying that identities are freely
rlr:rt they are somehow not real because rhey are pro-
a performance. Thev are quite real as we experience
rr trrms of their personal and social consequences. In
,rlt lurugh they may be performances, they are not freely
rystcm of compulsory heterosexuality exerts enormous
on each of us to "perform" the appropriate gen-
identity. Deviance from gender or sexual norms
risks and dangers, from being denied respect ro
t irrget of harassment or violence
I, there has been a revolution in the way
PaRr
,,r lrolirrs think about sexuality. Until recently, it was be-
tlr;rt lrumans were born with a sexual nature and that the
,,r,lt'r created a series of sexual types: heterosexuals, homo-
rrr:rsochists, pedophiles, and so on. Scientists thought
of sexuality would reveal the nature of the sexual
rts normal and abnormal expressions. The idea of sex-
would serve as the standard to judge and regulate
, rlrt' Ieading edge of scholarship views sex as funda-
.,rxi:rl. \)7e are born with bodies, but it is society that
wlrich parts of the body and which pleasures and acrs
Also, the classification of sex acts into good and bad or
,rrr.l illicit is today understood as a product of social
 Socrar CoNsrnucrloNtsrlr 39

power: the dominant sexual norms express the beliefs of the

dominant social groups. If we are supposed to grow up to be
heterosexual, and ifwe are expected to link sex to love, monogamy,
marriage, and family-making, that is not because nature dictates
this moral order but because specific groups impose these social
norms. Beliefs that there are natural and normal ways to be sexual
are understood as ideologies. How we come to have such beliefs as
well as their personal and social consequences are important
questions for the study ofsexuality. Indeed, the question ofwho
gets to define what is sexual and which institutions are respon-
sible for regulating our sexualities are key political questions.
In the coming chapters, I will illustrate this social perspective
by addressing the politics and ethics of sexuality.
 ri r 'rr.t,,rtrtir It()N ()tr St;xttAl_tfy

Chapter F our
tlr,ur st.x, a a requlre-
HnrsnosEXUArrry: Yct
Fnou BpnavloR To Inrrurrry Hel= lrI n.lr,rr r lrly r.irr cxample, Americans do not categorize
1,rt'llrence for fish or hamburgers. True, we
is rr vcgetarian, but vegetarians are not thought
in any fundamental physical, psychological,
AppnoacnrNc sEx as a social fact means understanding that, llurrr meat-eaters. To take another example, al-
whether or not we are actually born with a sexual narure, rhe lalrel individuais by whether they are right-
meaning of our desires and acrs, the way they are organized, irrrcl we might even think it odd for someone to
and
which sexual expressions are socially approved anci which are wc do not define an individual by this trait. \We
stigmarized are products of social factors. r)7e jol:s or the right ro marry according to whether
will pursue this
social view ofsexuality by considering the relarionship ,ncat-eaters or vegetarians, right- or left-handed.
between
FT5IIEII example, Ancienr Greece or
"lir<lay, rnosr Americans same could be said of
rake for granred that sexuality, like
r1r('(' or gt.rrk:r, is an identity. Individuals not rnrlx)rtant because it
only define them_
s.lv.s brrt als<l lct otlrt:rs know rhat rhey are straight, gay,
or bisex_
but not all societies have
ual, for cxanrple. Itor gays and lesbians, rhis disclosure_-__called tl ,r ( or'c, defining part of the individual.
coming slrl-i5
often deliberate and difficult. Heterosexuals typ_ ,,f t hc book, I want to illustrate a social approach to
ically reveal rheir sexual identiry by simpry talking about their txl,krring the topic ofsexual identity. In this chapter,
girlfriends or boyfriends or expressing their attractionto people However, heterosexuality is not merely
of
the opposite sex. Because many of us view sexuality as ar irmong others; ir is, in many societies, rhe norm
the core
of our identiries, we are preoccupied with our own and others, Wlrcre there is a norm, there is often resistance.
r lurptcrs, I turn to the gay, lesbian, and bisexual

r, I r rr lrcr illustrate the politics of sexual idenriry

r

between sexual behavior and iden-

qity. Humans have always acted in ways that we r-J(, 0I' ,,T HT.TEROSEXUAL IOTNTITY
call sexual, bur
not all socieries inrerprer this as self-defining. In some
rv,rrrl.l, if'asked, likely say that hererosexualiry is
rt r,, ,r lrirsit' human drive that makes life possible.

43

Hrr-e nosrx ual.try
They would be right, of course, in the sense rhar without hetero-
sexual behavior humans would have become exrincr, at least before
recent technologies, such as artificial insemination. Heterosexual
behavior has always existed. However, the meaning and social
or ganization of heterosexuality has varied considerably through-
out history. This is obvious if we think of the immense sociai
variation in patterns of intimacy, marriage,and rhe family. Today,
heterosexual intimacy can involve living togerher or aparr, mar-
riage or cohabitation, single-parent or multiple-parent families,
nuclear or exrended kinship unirs, or relationships based on rigid
gender roles or on a companionate, egalitarian ideal. These vari-
ations in intimate arrangements are a product of social factors,
such as the economic status of men and women, the role of the
govcrnmenr in promoting marriage or certain rypes of families,
antl tlrc influencc of mass media and popular culture.
I Iavc thcrc always bcen heterosexualsi, This question might
s.unrl fbolish. l)ocs narllre not produce heterosexuals, just as it
prclduccs males and flemales or right- and left-handed people or
green- and blue-eyed individualsi,Is hererosexuality nor a neces-
sity for human survival, and rherefore have there nor alwavs been
heterosexuals?
kt us examine rhis issue a bir closer. rVhar does ir mean to
that a person is a heterosexual today in Americai Most Ameri-
cans would probably say that rhe rerm refers to individuals who
are attracted ro persons of the opposite sex. 1i7e need to be carefui
and precise. To be heterosexual in contemporary America means
simply to exhibit sexual arrracrion toward the opposite sex. \fe
do not say thar to be heteror.*trul an individual has to be moti-
vared to marry or to have a family. \X/e simply
say thar hetero-
sexuals are individuals who feel sexual desire for someone of rhe
or, Snxt.t,tLtf'y
45
ol whcrher the aim is pleasure, procre-
ofus declare ourselves to be
.,,ur(' way we would identifi, as Jews or I_atinos.
Anrcrica, to be heterosexual means that you
to the opposite sex and that you claim a
r,lt'nt ity
rlll rrs rhat this norioo of heterosexuality was not
l.ly our ancesrors.' For example,
in nineteenth-
sc ientific and popuiar writers believed that indi-
l,oln with a sexual instinct. This instincr was a
l)r'()ljrarn ro procreare. The maie and female sexual
and oriented to procreation In other words,
was a reproducrive instinct. To be sexually
tr> [>e oriented to reproduce in the same way thar
to be driven to ear. I want to underscore this poinr:
indicated a reproductive drive, not simply a sex-
irrrd it was a drive or behavior, nor an idenrity.
Arnericans who sought only sexual pleasure in rhe
wt'rc considered abnormal. In other words, what we
a sexual desire for the opposire sex, was
say
orrr Vicrorian ancestors a perversion like sodomy or
there was no norion of the hererosexual as a
to be contrasted to the homosexual. The concepr of
was foreign to nineteenrh-cenrury America. With-
there could be no notion of the heterosexual
r, lcrrl ity
lt'tuu.rcxual first appeared in scienrific and medical
r lrt' llJ90s. It was defined as an identity based on sex-
lor r lrc opposite sex. The key point is that hetero-

HETERoSEXUALTTY 47
sexual desire was uncoupled from procreation. Normal sex was
defined as heterosexual erotic attraction; abnormal sex was homo-
sexual erotic attraction. In other words, the concept "heterosexual"
took shape and meaning in relation to the concept of homosexual.
Both terms indicated a sexual desire unrelated to reproduction
that was the basis of personal identity. By the early twentierh cen-
tury, many writers and ordinary citizens defined an individual's
sexual identity according to whether he or she was attracted to
the same or the opposite sex.
\7e can see this change in the meaning of heterosexuality in
Freud's writings. Unlike his nineteenth-century colleagues, Freud,
you might recall from Chapter 1, viewed the sexual instinct as
oriented to pleasure, not to reproduction. Furthermore, he held
t hat scxual satisfaction can involve many difrerent acts wirh varied
gorrls irr nrincl, strch as plcasurc, self-expression, love, or procre-
:rtiorr. llr lirt'trtl's rvritings, the modern heterosexual steps forward:
rlris is a tylrc o{ 1'rrson clclincd solciy by his or her sexual attracrion
to thc olrlrositc sex.
\(/hy did the meaning of heterosexualiry change from a repro-
ductive instinct to a sexual desire and identity? One perspective
holds that there was a crisis of gender identiry in the early twen-
tieth century.'Throughout much of the nineteenth cenrury, men
and women occupied different social roles. Men dominated the
public world of work and politics, while women's place was in
the private world of home and family. This division of labor was
thought to reflect essentiai differences between men and women.
Men q,ere viewed as intellectual, rational, aggressive, and goal-
oriented, whereas women were defined as emotional, nurturing,
empathic, and maternal. Marriages were based on the compli-
rnentarity of gender identities and roles. Men supported and
( LN\ I t(I r(..t't()N otr Srxuartry
, wlrilc women provided a moral and loving
iilr'iurr{cment began to break downin the early
r wt'rrr ieth century.
\7omen started to attend col-
tlrt' workforce, to organize for their rights, and to
irr social reform. At the same rime, men's work
slriIting from farm and blue-collar labor to white-
White-collar workers in corporations or rhe govern-
lrttlc power and were increasingly reliant on whar
s('('r) as "feminine" skills, such as being likable, coop-
,rgrccable. During this time in history, many people
women were becoming more "masculine" while men
more "feminine." The gender division between
which many thought to be the basis of a stable
w;rs collapsing. The sense of crisis was heightened
llllrt many women were choosing ro stay single, to
lo marry and remain childless.
to the blurring of gender identities was a new
orr t lrc norm of heterosexuaiity as a way to reassert gen-
and the normality of dichotomous gender roles. By
the naturalness and rightness ofheterosexuality, peo-
the differences between men and women as natural
is, ifheterosexuality was narural and essential for
ir stable social order, men and women should conrinue
roles. Asserting a clear heterosexual identity be-
to llag a normal gender identity. Heterosexualiry came
with a person's core self-identity and its meaning
orr being sexually attracted ro the opposite sex.
r<'srrlt of this emphasis on a heterosexual identity was
,I ir t trlture of homophobia. As heterosexuality became
 Hrrrnosrxuarrry 49
an important way to demonstrate a normal sexual and gender
identity, homosexuality represented a deviant status. Not oniy
was sexual attraction to a person of the same sex stigmatized, but
gender deviance was disapproved of as a sign of homosexualiry.
The result was that men and women feared exhibiting any gender
traits that deviated from norms of masculine men and feminine
women. A sexual system that aggressively enforced heterosexualiry
as a norm aimed to shore up a fragile gender order.
Pno.Jrcrlxc A HETERosExUAL IorNrrry
Let us shift our focus somewhat from the history ro the soci-
ology of heterosexuality. If establishing a heterosexual identity
bcr'amc an important way to projecr a normal, respectable gen-
tlcr itlcntity, h<lrv is a hererosexual rdentiry achieved in every-
rlay lifi'1 In orlrcr words, how do individuals convince orhers
tlrat tlrr:y arc hcteroscxuiil/
Kccp in mincl something that I menrioned previously about
the sociology of identity. Our idenrities are established in rela-
tions of contrast. Being a woman, in parr, involves establishing
that one is not a man. An individual fashions a normal iden-
tity as a woman by not exhibiting masculine rrairs, such as ex-
treme aggfessiveness, competitiveness. or sexual assertiveness.
Of course, there are different versions of what it means to be
a woman. They may conflict with one anorher, but ali involve
contrasts to some notion of manhood. If a woman exhibits cer-
tain masluline qualities, such as an intense interest in sports
or a single-minded pursuit of career success, she might still be
able to command respect as a "good woman," but only if she is
cmphatically heterosexual.
ot,StxuaLtry
rrrtlivitluals establish a heterosexual identity in
t lrlrrrsclvcs from any associations with homo-
,lrstrrnt.ing has often involved engaging in anti-
llolrrolrlrobic conduct not only announces that
lrrrt declares that heterosexuality is good and
rs Irit,l
r,'.,,',utlrcrs studied how high school students used
l,r'il( t ices to establish a public heterosexual identity.l
tlrirr students, especiaiiy boys, were eager to avoid
llrirt they might be gay. The high school culture
studied had its own conventions for defining
Iior example, boys who were good sru.lents, hard-
qtriet, or unathleric were somerimes labeled gay.
interpreted each other's behavior as signs of
r,llnt ities.
to such anxieties, students regulated their same-
so that any intimate expression that might be
,r,, st'xual was excluded. Similarly, many of the boys
irrry interaction with students who were suspected
lrinally, boys would engage in aggressive pr-rblic
harassing, threatening, and somerimes
believed to be gay. This behavior allowed boys
t'stirblish a respected heterosexual identiry
rrt't'cling to not appear gay, rhese boys felt an addi-
to lrroject a clear, emphatic heterosexual identity:
, I)rcsenting a seamless aggressive heterosexual
ir, ('riscrltial for maintaining a credible sratus as a
| ,r,1'
t i,tn,q l?ape, a study of American college fraterni-
I)t'ggy Sanday explored how gender anxieties
/

Hrrrnosrxuerrry 5l
pressure individuais to act aggressively heterosexual.a Such be-
lravior protects a man from gender anxiery, an anxiety that is
driven in part by fears of being sl-ramed if he is viewed as less than
a consistently masculine man. Sanday showed how fraternity boys
fashion a sense of a masculine self that leans heavily on aggressive
heterosexual behavior that at rimes leads to violence.
Sanday studied a phenomenon known as "puliing train," in
which fraternity boys successively rape a woman who is typically
drunk or drugged. Frat boys reporr feeling enormous pressure
to participate; resisrance is taken as a sign of a falrering mascu-
linity and possibly homosexuality. To rationalize this violence
toward women, which ar times involves coercion, the boys define
the women as wanring and deserving this treatmenr because rhey
are "rvhor{:s," "sluts," or "bad girls."
Analyzing lrow thc fratcrniry brorhers talked abour sex, Sanday
obscrvctl a I)r('o(.( r.ll)iltion rvitl-r sexual conquest. lWhat mattered
was accumulating scrxrral parrners; the higher the number, the
more prestige the boys accruecl. Of course, this meant that a nor-
mal, respected masculine status involved reducing (some) women
to sex objects. Sex rtself was narrowly viewed as inrercourse,
with the man clearly in control. Heterosexual sex was seen as a
way to display masculine power. In this regard, frat boys were
expected to make their conquests public, to brag about rheir
sexual prowess by revealing details of their dominance. For some,
the pressure to exhibit a certain masculine style led rhem to rape
women, with the aid of alcohol, drugs, or verbal coercion.
Sanday believes that this norm ofaggressive hererosexuality
fosters the intense homosocial bonds among fraternity brothers.
By organizins rituals of male bonding around hererosexuality,
any trace of homoeroticism is suppressed.
( r )Ns I l{ l lc l loN olr Srxuartrv
( )r l " ns IIlt.rRosExuAL
L,rr,r1 rrgo rhar most Americans could simply assume
r rr izr^lrs were hererosexuai. Until fairly recently,
lrirtl vcry little exposure ro openly gay or lesbian
I l,rrrost.xrraliry was far removed from the lives of ordi_
Arrrt ricrns, and homosexuals could be approached
',1'r', its.
rlr,rt r lrirrrgcd in dre 1990s. As gays and lesbians exired
, raight Americans have had ro deal with them as
sr
, lir,lrrs, celebrities, poliricians, service providers, and
first time in American history, it can
l<irr. For tlre
lirrys ancl lesbians are truly everywhere and increas_
sccn and heard. Today, many Americans are more
Io rlcal with gay and lesbian individuals as real
lust rrl>srractions. These close encounters between
rurrl 11;ry5 l)resent a challenge to straigbtt: what does it
,.rr;rirglrr, and how does
one project heterosexuality if
,rr cr,1,rable ro engage in public homophobic be_
a heterosexual identity has relied heavily
homosexuality, how is a public srraight
orr( wlrcn homosexuality is considered a natural
l,,rrt ()f tlte human condition?
,rrio, I rcsearched this quesrion., I found that as
lrcc onre more visible and vocal, and are inte-
, r,r'ry. lrry Iifc, heterosexuals approach their sexual
,r ililt( lt rrrrlrc deliberate mannef. Of course, for peo_
,r( { (.1)( thc changing social and moral status
of
r lrcy rrrrry conrinue to rely upon homophobic
r lrcir lrc,tc,rosexual identity. However, what
 ( )tr SIixUALI'IY
HErmosrxuerrry 53

abour those individuals who accept the "normal" starus of being
gay or lesbian?
How do they asserr their heterosexual identity
without stigmatizing homosexuality?
I found that some of these individuals soughr nonhomophobic'
ways ro establish boundaries between being straight and gay.
tlrlrrr lo avoid being identified as a lesbian.
\r r;rl('gics for projecting a srraight idenrity
l,rrlrlrr lrornophobic behavior, it seems clear that
,.lrr w:rnrs ro be seen as straight is the sense of
r('\l)('( I still associated with heterosexuality.

For example, I interviewed a twenty-year-old African
American
woman by the name of Natasha. She lived in New york City and
was something of a party girl. As a large athleric woman who
counted lesbians and gay men among her friends, she was often
assumed by others to be a lesbian. Despite a religious upbring_
ing that stigmatized homosexuality, Natasha accepted lesbians
/i,ry iur(l lcsbian is normalized and rolerated in
rrrtlividuals will still be motivated to identify
Ilrrr, more and more Americans will look for
wtys to establish a boundary between being
1i,ry. Sonre srraight indrviduals will restrict their
rirrys; others may lean even more on conventional

and gay men as ordinary, normal individuals. At the same rime, lo l)rojcct a srraight idenrity; while still orhers
she did not like that she was sometimes perceived as a lesbian. lrctt'rosexual interests and prowess to authorize an

Shc was, as she rold me, srraight. So, I asked her why it mat_ striright identiry. As long as ireterosexuality is
"irrstitutionalized," Americans will continue to
t.rt'cl il's.rrc 1rc.1rlc pcrceived heras a lesbian. she said that she
wi,rr('(l 1r..1rlc ro kn.w her fbr who she really is. She believed t. r'srirl>[ish clear boundaries, and for most individ-
that [>ci,g nrisrcprcscnred could interfere with her social life invcllve a more deliberate approach-a kind of
a,d her academic interesrs in sports. Ir also seemed clear to me l)rocess.
that Natasha, like many other straight-identified Americans,
wished to be publicly recognized as straight because it is stil a
normarive and socially privileged srarus.
So, Natasha struggled with how to project a straight identity
without demeaning gays and lesbians. She decided that if some_
one asked her if she was a lesbian she would say she was not but
that she would make it clear that she is accept ing of gay and les_
bian people. Also, Natasha decided that in conversarions in school
or with her family or peer group, she would find ways to reveal
her hererosexuality. She said, "I talk abour men, and I let it be
known that I'm into men." She also mentioned that while she
has some friends who are lesbian, she would generally
avoid going