Rubin states that a radical theory of sex should be identified, described and explained. The theory should be able to denounce erotic injustice and sexual oppression. It should contain a language convincing enough to highlight the barbarity connected to sexual prosecution. Several stereotypical thoughts about sex exist. They usually weave with them different political context that consequently acquire new rhetorical expression that end up producing fundamental sayings. Such is the thought of sex as being essential, an axiom referred to as sex essentialism. This states that sex is a natural force that exists prior to social life and shapes institutions. However, many researchers have challenged sexual essentialism both explicitly and implicitly. Homosexuality for example, through the works of Jeffery Weeks has been proven to be a generally modern institutional complex. Judith Walkowiz on the other hand describes meticulously how the interplay of social forces like ideology, fear, political agitation, legal reforms and medical practices can change the structure of sexual behaviors consequently and alter its consequences.
Jakobsen bases his argument on domination. This kind of domination proves that autonomous individuals are not exactly autonomous as argued by most feminists. The free autonomous individual depend on domination. This kind of freedom is what leads to the formation of gay identity and which also encourages sexual regulation. It specifically encourages the spirit of marriages. This analysis shows that there is no way towards individual liberation and the only solution is to focus not on gay liberation, but on remarking social relations in ways that will undercut the individualism that enables capitalists exploitation and requires sexual regulation. Individualism is the central point of focus in the case of gay liberation and sexual liberation. It controls both liberatory and regulatory discourse as well as supports the relationship between them. It is modern individualism that should be fought against to attain sexual freedom.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The two authors majorly focus on both sexual liberation and sexual regulation. Both argue that the aspect of being gay is based on modern ideologies and was not in the traditional institution of sexuality. In addition, they both support the divinity of sex in marriages. There are contemporary conflicts over sexual values and erotic conduct similar to the religious related disputes of the early centuries. Sexual negativity is viewed in the same writings. Jakobsen cites the late nineteenth century when there was both educational and political campaigns to encourage chastity, to eliminate prostitution and to discourage masturbation, especially among the young. Morality crusaders as well attacked obscene literature, nude paintings, abortion, birth control information and public dancing. These actions of the past era left a great mark on the basis of attitude towards sex, medical practices, child bearing, parental anxiety, police conducts and sexual laws.
Rubin on the other hand expounded more on sexual negativity. He argues that the western culture views sex as dangerous, destructive and as a negative force of influence. In religion such as Christianity, sex is considered sinful and is accepted exclusively in marriages where pleasure is limited. Sex is generally treated with suspicion and each sexual resulted act is viewed first by its worst possible expression. In some states, sodomy is still punishable by law. In American and European history, consensual anal penetration was punished by execution. Currently, there are different forms of sexual transgression including those who do not affirm to generational boundaries. Other despised sexual castes include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models.
Both writers highlight the purity of sex in its marital form although aspects like birth control and child bearing are still in question. People who practice sex in marriage however are viewed with respect, certified mental health, social and physical mobility, institutional support and also material benefits. The other groups that practice sex that is despised are mostly viewed with disrespect, accused of mental instability, they are faced with restricted social and political mobility, loss of institutional mobility and economic suctions. Extreme and punitive stigma as well is faced by these groups with an effective sanction to those who engage in them. The role of religion in the determination of sexual laws can be viewed with Christianity as an examples. Aspects of sex such as incest, homosexuality and bestiality have been prohibited. Medicine and psychiatry however have vindicated some practices such as homosexuality from mental disorders but maintained the rest such as fetishism, sadism, masochism, transexuality, transvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism and pedophilia. Medical and psychiatric involvement on the governing of sex renders the act more as mental and emotional inferiority rather than sexual sin.
The homosexual menace has been dated back to 1950’s when it was more dangerous than prostitution and masturbation. The term ‘sex offenders’ was used to refer to homosexuals and children molesters. Commercial sex has also been under police checks with child pornography attracting sentencing. Child pornography can simply be defined as the exposure of minors as nudes or engaging in sexual activities. Boy lovers on the other hands have been so stigmatized they can barely get a legal presentation. In politics, aspects like sex education, homosexuality, pornography, abortion and premarital sex have been found to be at the center stage. Sexual reaction was reported to have played a significant role in the 1980 election with organizations based on such ideologies attracting a mass following, immense financial resources and unanticipated clout. Laws and regulation as well that prevented teenage girls from accessing contraceptives or abortion have been promulgated. Teenagers are advised to refrain from sex. In cases of practice, methods of contraceptives are advised.
Rubin in his arguments talks about essentialism; the acceptance of sex as a naturally occurring thing. On the other hand, Jakobsen viewed the effects of sex as based on individualism such as homosexuality. In both cases however, sex is broken down as either a mode of life experience or as a mode of universal negativity. With opposition coming from all angles of the globe, whether political or religious, sex and sex laws remain a major focus in both ethical, social and political grounds. The negativity of sex, reflected from the various despised methods listed down, narrows it down exclusively for procreation. Basing the argument on Rubin’s thoughts, sex is for procreation as stated in many facets of the topic with religion holding it sacred if the pleasure are minimized. The laws put in place to prevent sexual misappropriation integrate continuously with the traditional modes of sexual beliefs. Due to globalization and modern institutional interference, much has changed as obstructed by medicine and psychiatry. With most tradition sexual offenses being vindicated, such as homosexuality, the tension that is raised through sexual negativity will take a while to be cooled. With individualism as a center of approach, sex remains a personal drive and forbidden modes of sex are still not justified by sexual essentialism.
References
Jakobsen, Janet. (2005). Sex + Freedom = Regulations: Why . Duke University Press. Pp. 143-172.
Rubin, Gayle. (1984). “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”. From Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader.Peter Aggleton &Richard Parker Edition. Routledge. 2006. 143-172
