Insatiable Lust: Anytime, Anyone

Considering that my only blog contribution so far has been two pessimistic, slightly misanthropic comments, I’ll try to keep this post on the light side (no promises). While reading and discussing the selections from Intimate Matters, it became more and more clear that 1) sexuality is made, usually by the dominant power group, rather than natural and 2) the construction of sexuality, sexual mores and sexual prohibitions are often incredibly complicated. We, or at least I, tend to think of American from the seventeenth century to the pre-hippie 1960s as following a pretty constant sexual script. The degree of overall prude-ness might fluctuate, but always against the constant backdrop of sex in marriage and the chaste female. Turns out, not only are different positions in the social hierarchy—racial and economic “others” are very visible examples– judged by and subjected to varying norms (still imposed or perpetuated or relied upon by those of higher status), but a fundamental “fact” can reverse with time—even if its subject remains the same. To be more specific, women were once seen as sexually and emotionally capricious; Eves walking around in contemporary garb instead of conspicuous grape leaves. Men were rational, capable of restraining themselves and the “lesser” sex. Somewhere in the mix of history, politics, culture and who knows else, the story was gradually transformed—women evolved from sinners into domestic goddesses, guardians of family morals. Men were neatly absolved of self control and their previous supervisory responsibilities—it was women’s duty to save them. These two extremes clearly show the capricious and often contradictory manifestations of “sexuality.” This idea perfectly jives with an innocuous but amusing fact that I heard two years ago in an intro pysch class. The professor was going over biological theories of homosexuality when she mentioned in passing that the “homosexuals” involved in medical and psychological studies are largely male. Apparently scientists consider female sexuality too “fluid” and “open” to be confidently relied upon and measured.  An “educated” view that bears a disturbing resemblance to the oversexed young male’s view that lesbians are hot, but sex acts between two men is just, well…gay.