The vital role of sex and sexuality in how humans comprehend and navigate the world is irrefutable. However, arguments and counterarguments still persist in understanding the theories of sex and sexuality concerning the acceptable gender identities and sexual behaviors of these identities. There seems to be always a clash of which one is acceptable and which one is not, and with supporters of these genders disagreeing with its opposers (Schudson et al. 2017). The rising attention on people who do not fit in any of the binary categories of "male" or "female" since the 1980s has continued with the arguments on whether sexual identities are due to biological make-up or artificial desires. The theories of sex and sexuality are played out and lived differently in practice; these theories could be understood through some disciplines such as violence, race, queer lives, human trafficking, and disability, among others.
There have been mixed remarks when it comes to how daily lives affect one's sex and sexuality. While other people have issues whenever issues of gender and sexuality are addressed primarily to a mixed audience, there is a case where only little embarrassment for younger audiences is experienced. In some of these cases, it is because of the current lifestyle in which the youngsters are expertise in the varying kinds of sexuality to the point that they see them as being normal. Sex and sexuality attract unprecedented media attention, with sexual orientation considered something of-choice similar to how individuals choose the clothes they wear, make-up, or the cars they drive. Whenever the subject of sexuality comes up, it has a close connotation with pleasure and incentives. In the case of queer lives, they continually face troubles explaining how they could achieve that in ways considered unacceptable to some members of the society (Burnes et al., 2017). The concern of such incentives and pleasure being achieved peacefully fuels further discussions on whether people should be forced to accept the gender assigned at birth or whether it would be acceptable in the socialist tradition (Burnes et al., 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The sexual configurations theory helps in further understanding, describing, and study of sexual diversity gender. In this case, people's gender or sexuality show their experiences and conceptualizations of what they are comfortable with about how their immediate community members treat them for their sexual orientation. The epistemological underpinnings of human trafficking show the solitary axis of oppression, which creates ontological relationships between sex, gender, and sexuality in achieving the social justice objectives (Burnes et al., 2017). The failure of states and societies in taming violence against straight, cisgender women and handing the aggressive masculinity behaviors onto male bodies explains why some people associate with gender or sexual orientation they do not agree with or are not comfortable with the goal of increasing chances for their safety.
The understanding of gender and sexuality through the queer theory shows the interdisciplinary approach to sexuality. According to the theory, the rigidity of Western society in its splitting the gender sot only male and females has fortified ways people think about sexual orientation, which become a problem for people with a gender other than male or female. It has led to a mismatch between gender identity, sexual orientation, and anatomical sex and led to unfavorable labeling of people with an orientation other than male or female (Schudson et al., 2017). The phenomena explain clamor for the more flexible, more fluid conceptualization of sexuality to allow for more freedom, change, and negotiation. The queer lives help understand the theories of sex through several assumptions and claims, such as the difference in meaning of genital acts among various groups of people. Other issues that help explain or understand the theory are the lots of time people spend thinking about sex, the difference in liking to engage in sex among different people, distinctions in the richness of mental or emotional involvement with sexual acts.
In another case of symbolic interactionism, the focus is on the association of meanings with sexual orientation. The devaluation of femininity in society, particularly in the United States, makes the feminists' subjects of ridicule, primarily for boys and men. Masculinity is considered the symbolic norm, while heterosexuality signifies normalcy. Thus, the interactions labeling impacts the shaping of attitudes towards gays, lesbians, and other sexual identities considered deviant. This case demonstrates how society leads to acceptance and rejection of particular sex and sexuality practices based on what it promotes as positive and discourages the other orientations terming them deviant or harmful. It has led to the formation of slurs such as fag and other constant derogatory labels, homophobia, and jokes that affect the self-image and lead to self-hate of the people who associate with such orientation (Schudson et al., 2017). The high levels of rejection could lead to the people who identify with such sexual orientation committing suicide or changing the gender they associate to avoid such confrontations and abuse.
Human trafficking is a primary global concern in which people are forcefully or deceptively moved from one nation to another against the conscious sober will. In most cases, the trafficked people are sold as sex slaves, and worst in another case, their non-degenerative organs are sold after they are killed. People who are sold as sex slaves or forced into sexual slavery could be forced to engage in sexual activities in manners that they do not prefer; for instance, heterosexuals are forced into gay or lesbianism. In the end, these people tend to associate either the same gender orientation long after they manage to evade the forceful sexual encounters of sex trafficking. They become accustomed to such sexual orientation, which they initially did not prefer, and now consider it their norm and most preferred (Burnes et al., 2017). The power differentials present and dominant in sex and sexual orientation promote worldviews and economic interests favorable to them, promoting the legalization of marriage such as gay marriage or lesbian marriages depending on what they support. The continued struggle for financial and social resources among people with conflicting sexual orientations leads to a sustained degree of conflict that affects how society interests acceptable sexual orientation.
Biological functionalism as a paradigm asserts pragmatic concerns as evident in society's values, beliefs, practices, and social institutions. The same applies to the values and beliefs assigned to sex and sexual orientation, reflecting pragmatic societal concerns (Schudson et al., 2017). On the other hand, the psychoanalytic theory attempts to explain the psyche into the functions of the unconscious source of the primitive sexual, aggressive, and dependency impulses, as well as the intersection of societal mores with superego, setting of standards by which people live and the ego which is a representation of the sense of self and medication between realities of the movement about psychic conflict and needs.
Notably, disability and sexuality issues have remained on the periphery, with most studies less concerned with such studies. However, the current information indicates a close association between sexual identity development with a disability, especially for the sexual minority, including the bisexual, gays, and lesbians in the community (Burnes et al., 2017). Society has shown harsh treatment men to the people living with disability who proclaim their sexual identity to being queer, lesbian, gay, or bisexuals or any other orientation besides male or female. The belittling of such people leads them to denounce their sexual orientation and resort to hiding or associating with just male or female orientation. The implication is an understanding of such human behaviors and their impact on the people living with disabilities and their gender associations that affect their social environments and further develop theory in that discipline.
Essay 2
The tensions between biological essentialism and social constructionism are evident in how society interprets sex and sexual orientation differences. In fact, in
In the layman's setting, people continue to disagree over whether people with genders other than male or female are so because of the natural biological physiology or whether it is a mere choice because of their interests and lifestyles. Some factions argue that such people as gays, lesbians, transgender people, and bisexuals are sexually greedy people who are not content with the natural heterosexual identity expected of all humans according other, the proponents (Falomir-Pichastor et al. 2017). On the contrary, people who support such gender orientations or who proclaim o associate with them state that it is a natural occurrence that they have no control over. They argue that their feelings and behaviors are shaped by what they feel in the most natural sense without interference from external interests or exposure to specific contents. Thus the arguments and tensions between biological essentialism and social constructionism persist in formal and informal settings and other spheres such as political, religious, and academic circles. The tension between biological essentialism and social constructionism thus supports the disciplines of sexuality studies and sociology of sex in several ways. Additionally, biological essentialism and social constructionism shapes how people think about sex and sexuality. The two could be nuanced together to shape a harmonious way of thinking that would be acceptable to most people in society rather than considering each separate with the possibility of continued animosity.
According to Greene (2020), there are variations in the social nature of the biological knowledge on human sexuality, particularly sexual orientation. The author supports the idea that the labeling of a person as man or woman is, in fact, a social decision that resonates well with social constructionism. Whereas the author acknowledges the existence and importance of scientific knowledge, he reckons that the beliefs on gender are the foundation to how people define sex and sexual behavior, which even affects the kind of information scientists produce about sex. Sexuality comprises a range of practices and behaviors when checked across cultures, and the acceptable standards or existing tensions are often shaped by how acceptable the behaviors are to the individual societies. The behaviors could change over time with the influences from other cultures and lead to changing their sexual orientation from the one assigned at birth or not having different experiences of sexuality. Social constructions are arenas of social controls, for instance, the forced assimilation of the Pueblo peoples. The Pueblo has the third gender and alternative roles for bisexual males and females and gays. A similar scenario is evident in Africa, with the trend of boy-wives and female-husbands all pointing towards the influence of social constructionism in shaping the beliefs and practices of these communities. The two examples reveal the changes in the spectrum of sexual desires and behaviors depending on what the individual societies promote or support, even though they face backlash from the opponents of such arrangements beyond binary sex and gender categories.
It remains questionable whether sexual identities such as homosexuality and lesbianism or bisexual are intertwined in one's natural being or just phenomena created by people because of their preferences. The advocates of homosexuality want to be acceptable and accommodated by the rest of the community, while the proponents of biological essentialism want it abolished. The conflicting view leads to significant conflicts in the society, which defines the conflicting views on the various sexual identities. Most gays, lesbians, and bisexuals do not meet the definition of biological essentialism, considering that some of their characteristics to define their sexual orientations are not immutable and not solely biological (Falomir-Pichastor et al., 2017). The cultural and historical concepts also shape the arguments against some sexual identities beyond their bodily variations and certain body features. Recognition for social constructivism and biological essentialism leads to multifarious instead of unified approaches to sex and sexuality that affect how people analyze approaches and criticisms towards such sexual identities.
The different societies often promote what the majority of its people support. These communities could either support certain sexual behaviors, practices, and orientations as selected and conditioned by their members. In other cases, the tensions in such communities could arise as the proponents of biological essentialisms term such behaviors as beast-like and unacceptable. These changes can lead to different sexual experiences depending on where one is born or raised. The difference in behaviors and identity is insufficient to establish sexual orientation as a social construction beyond social meaning and categorization. The socially defined characteristics could also lead to misinterpretation, affecting how people view sexuality, which may not be objective or universal. The question of sexual orientation being innate or chosen then is a significant cause for controversies and shape arguments. The perception of heterosexuality as the norm has led to many more people being heterosexual and considering it the norm. Additionally, people who identify as heterosexuals consider it natural and acceptable as a natural order, but when it comes to homosexuality and lesbianism, it becomes a question of scientific misconception and causes for political suspicion. The scientific flaw in heterosexual origins has led many religious zealots, researchers, and political pundits to consider homosexuality and bisexuality as sickness, evil, perversion, and a threat to the proper social order or humanity (Greene, 2020).
Social constructionist has higher endorsement when it comes to sexual orientation, implying that people who are not heterosexual are seen as so out of their choice and not because of the natural physiology. Thus, the situations further aggravate the tensions as supporters of biological essentialism condemn such sexual orientation as wrong, evil, perverse, and unacceptable to the point that some physically assault people who identify with such orientation. The discrimination attribution is affected by any constructionist explanations of gender differences. When it comes to sexuality, classical essentialism promotes a discontinuity instead of a continuous variation that shapes perceptions of sex and sexuality. Some groups consider all sexual identities as acceptable s an individuals' choice while other support and requirement their peers to adhere to the naturally acceptable orientation. It is, in fact, the reason for such movements, the LGBTQ, which seek to have their sexual identities acceptable in the society without discrimination or animosity (Falomir-Pichastor et al. 2017).
In modern essentialism, people are promoting the belief that while some phenomena might be natural, inevitable, and biologically determined, there is a need for giving the room of choice and freedom to people who want different. On the other hand, the biological essentialists are against such ideals stating that following that direction will only make things worse for society and lead to backwardness in biological and social influences (Greene, 2020). Even though there could be theories that conjoin research and theory in social sexual influences, it is challenging to combine biological essentialism with social constructionism and consider them a single way of thinking in the r definition and normalization of sex and sexual orientation acceptable in society.
References
Burnes, T. R., Singh, A. A., & Witherspoon, R. G. (2017). Graduate counseling psychology training in sex and sexuality: An exploratory analysis. The Counseling Psychologist , 45(4), 504-527.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000017714765.
Falomir-Pichastor, Manuel, J., Mugny, G., & Berent, J. (2017). The side effect of egalitarian norms: Reactive group distinctiveness, biological essentialism, and sexual prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 20(4), 540-558.
Greene, S. (2020). Biological determinism and essentialism. Companion to Feminist Studies , 13-14.
Schudson, Z. C., Dibble, E. R., & Anders, S. M. (2017). Gender/sex and sexual diversity via sexual configurations theory: Insights from a qualitative study with gender and sexual minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity , 4(4), 422.https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/sgd0000241.
