write 2 responds about the sample answer. Each of them at least 150words

1)I am so (!!!) excited for this online course. Naturally I feel like it’s one of those niche courses that would never be offered in a high school/primary education setting. My favorite part about attending a big liberal arts university is that I’m allowed to choose from classes that have nothing to do with my major or chosen career, but they’re just as interesting and aren’t taught in traditional settings. I feel like I don’t know enough about the legislative/political/cultural history behind my general understanding of sexuality and love. I am probably most looking forward to any topics focused on intimate relations/partner selection/social constructs of romance and sexuality/matched pairs theories (if discussed). As a Psychological and Brain Sciences major here at UCSB, we learn all about the evolutionary and anthropological foundations of mate selection and codependency. We learn about why humans choose to invest in certain relationships/partners and why they stray from others (for instance, from an evolutionary perspective, women typically seek partners with financial resources, protective qualities like tall height and broad shoulders, and loyalty; whereas men typically seek partners with “attractive” features that they want passed onto their offspring, and a strong maternal investment in their offspring’s survival). All of this is typically perceived from a very scientific, evolutionary, and archaic lens – everything relates back to our origins, or our DNA, or our ancestor’s reproductive failures and successes. I feel like this class will take a much more modern approach to the understanding of sexuality, desire, mate selection, and love. I truthfully don’t know much about the legislative history and political conflicts that surround sexuality. I also don’t know much about the economic and social disparities that certain groups, genders, races, or communities have faced for years as a result of their identities trying to be oppressed. I think this all will be super interesting and informative and am really excited to be learning from y’all. Also! I saw we’d be watching Janelle Monaé’s Dirty Computer at the end of this course and she is literally one of my favorite artists ever (Crazy, Classic, Life is SO good and must be listened to) so I’m excited for that! 🙂

So far, this week’s readings have already been really informative on a lot of the history behind the different political, social, and economic conflicts that certain groups faced solely based on their sexual or gender identity. It was interesting to hear about how the anti-pornography movement came to be and how the AIDS epidemic made widespread homophobia acceptable. I also found it interesting how many authors echoed the same argument: sexuality is constructed on a hierarchy of power and oppression, in which certain groups and activities (monogamous, uni-generational, heterosexual, post-marital sex) are seen as pure and acceptable, while other groups and activities (casual, cross-generational, pre-marital sex) are suppressed. These issues are systemic and have prevailed with years of tolerance and neglect in the legal and social spheres. I feel like this concept is going to echo a lot throughout this course and be very enlightening, so I’m excited to learn more!

2)I take this course for upper-division requirements. I also interest in the topic of sex, love, romance, and the relationship between those and sociality.

Sexuality is the reason for the existence of life on earth – in both highly civilized and tribal cultures. It is probably why this topic attracts so much attention and gives rise to so many discussions. Sexuality can be perceived from different sides, including sex, race, sexual and gender identity.

In a civilized society, there are two primary standards for the perception of sexuality – social construction and essentialism approaches. According to Social Construction Theory, sexuality is “the product of human action and history rather than the invariant result of the innate sex drive” (Vance, 1989, p. 160). Unlike the axiom of sexual essentialism, this approach makes it possible to ask questions about sexuality and is not dogmatic. Scientists note that quite often, proponents of this approach mistakenly believe that “sexual identity is easily changeable, much like a new outfit plucked from the closet at whim” (Vance, 1989, p. 161). Another erroneous assumption is that individuals have conscious control over sexual identity or that large scale cultural formations regarding sexuality are easily changed (Vance, 1989). In general, the social construction approach assumes that the same sexual behavior can be interpreted differently in various cultures, which were formed under the influence of distinct historical circumstances. On the other hand, people can change and adapt their sexual behavior and perceptions, including those related to the culture in which they were raised.

Ideas of sexual essentialism are common in modern society and are not always defined by their carriers. An analog of this lack of self-identification is the lack of self-determination in heterosexual people as such. The approach is based on the idea that “sex is a natural force that exists before social life and shapes institutions” (Rubin, 1984, p. 109). Therefore, sexuality is perceived as eternally unchanging, asocial, and transhistorical phenomena. Sexual essentialism reflects traditional views of sexuality, as opposed to the approach presented above, which recognizes the diversity of sexual behavior, expression, and experience. 

Sexual and gender identity and sexual behavior can be recognized in society as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ ‘Good’ identity and sexuality remain inside a charmed circle that ensures benefits and privileges (Rubin, 1984). Interestingly, due to the historical dominance of the white race and the perception of masculinity as dominant sexuality, a unique phenomenon emerged in the US. White men who preferred sex with men considered themselves heterosexual for this reason (Ward, 2008). At the same time, men of other races who preferred sex with men were deemed to be gay. In this way, these men used their racial identity as a bridge from heterosexual identity.

Thus, sexuality was discussed in terms of feminist, social construction, and essentialism approaches, and the context of marginalization. The social construction approach assumes that social, cultural, and historical trends shape sexuality. At the same time, the essentialism approach implies that sexuality is something natural, natural, and unchanging. Both approaches are partly fair and mutually complementary and create a space for a more profound and controversial discussion.

studying sex:
frameworks, identities, and cases

week 1 lecture

feminist studies 150, summer session b

ms. mariah webber, m.a.

**adapted from the works of Victorian and Dr. Miller-Young

objectives for week 1
explore how feminist theory works to destabilize sexuality as a fixed, static or “natural” category.
discuss the social construction of sex and how this societal construction affects our interpretation of sex across various cultures.
examine how ideas of essentialism are embedded within our dominant understandings of sexuality and gender.
analyze how sexuality and gender are entangled with other marginal identities.

gayle rubin,
“thinking sex”
(1984 original; 1992 this version)
Key terms:
moral panics
sexual essentialism
sex negativity (and positivity)
fallacy of misplaced scale
sex hierarchy
domino theory of sexual peril
lack of a concept of sexual variation

moral panics
whats a moral panic? think: witchcraft, interracial r*pe, virginity, teen pregnancy, etc.
intensely symbolic — sexual activities often function as fake or misleading targets
”the ‘political moment’ of sex, in which diffuse attitudes are channeled into political action and from there into social change” (119)
targeted populations, often those with less power, suffer the most but everyone is affected
“draw(s) on the pre-existing discursive structure which invents victims in order to justify treating ‘vices’ as crimes” (119)
examples
discursive use of aids to incite homophobia (119)
blaming hip-hop to implement policies that furthers the policing of black and brown communities (less so attention to sex/gender issues in country music…)
blaming media to legitimize more control and regulation of girls’ bodies. (remember this for week 2)

3

six ideological formations shaping sexual thought
(broken down in the following slides)

sexual essentialism

sex negativity (and positivity)

fallacy of misplaced scale

Sex hierarchy

domino theory of sexual peril

lack of a concept of sexual variation

1. sexual essentialism
the idea that sex is a natural force that exists prior to social life and shapes institutions” (9)
sex as eternally unchanging, physiological or psychological.
instead, social constructionism places sex in history, points to sex as not purely biological but highly social (more in vance)

2. sex negativity
the idea that sex is a “dangerous, destructive, and negative force” (106)
“sex is presumed guilty until proven innocent” (11)

toward “sex positivity”
rubin pushes for an anthropological understanding of different sexual cultures. a framework of sex positivity would cherish and value various expressions of sex and sexual identity without demonizing them

3. fallacy of misplaced scale
”sexual acts are burdened with an excess of significance” (11)
catastrophizing where small differences are seen as huge shifts or issues.
sex made a “special case” and a root of larger issues
system of sexual value where acts are given different positive and negative value, thus different rewards, passes, and punishments
some behaviors seen to warrant medical, psychiatric, and state intervention
4. sex hierarchy

the charmed circle
shows the need to “draw the line” between good and bad sex → good and bad people
useful learning tool, but it does oversimplify some things
(see footnote on page 14)
class, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. also play into this heavily
(some discussion on 22)

5. domino theory
of sexual peril
idea of a line between sexual order and sexual chaos.
only good side is given moral complexity, seen to “exhibit the full range of human experience” (14).
things change – shift across the line.
the notion that all sex should be the same, for everyone
ignoring how variation is “a fundamental property of all life” (15). research has shown great variation in sex practices, identities, and experiences.
how can we avoid doing this in feminist frameworks?
6. lack of a concept
of sexual variation

shortcomings
Language
rubin engages in outdated language practices that are now considered to be harmful slurs. words such as tr*nny and tr*nsv*stite are no longer acceptable in feminist writing.
language has changed since 1984.
i suggest using “transgender” or “trans” unless you are directly quoting a source, or you are referring to a person or organization’s own language.
(e.g., the 1970s activist organization, star: street transvestite action revolutionaries)

your thoughts?
how do you see rubin’s framework applying today or not applying?
for certain people, sexual acts, or contexts, is sex seen more or less negatively?

rubin is pushing us toward a theory and politics of sex incorporating feminist critiques of gender hierarchy
the terms and charmed circle are useful in your own analytical “toolkit”
sexuality is political
major takeaways from rubin

carol vance,
“social construction theory”
(1989 original; 1998 this version)
key terms:
social constructionism
essentialism

essentialism
a belief that human behavior is “natural”, predetermined by genetic, biological, or physiological mechanisms and thus not subject to change; or the notion that human behaviors which show some similarity in form are the same, an expression of an underlying human drive or tendency. (p. 160)

social constructionism
a framework that challenges “the “natural” status of many domains, presenting the possibility of a truly social inquiry as well as suggesting that human actions have been and continue to be subject to historical forces and, thus, to change” (161).

three misunderstandings
of social constructionism
sexual identity is somehow fictional, trivial, unimportant, not “real” because it is social constructed
individual sexual identity is thus easily changeable, as are larger cultural formations regarding sexuality
constructionist theory only predicts discontinuity or change; demonstrating historical or social continuity proves that constructionism is wrong

major takeaways from vance

Sexuality is mediated across factors of history and culture (162)—it is not fixed or essential

the relationship between sexual identity and sexual act is not fixed

sexuality as an unstable category, always flexible and changing

we must challenge underlying assumptions of what sexuality is/means

questions to reflect on
what aspects of sexuality could be innate?
how does the university offer a site to think about the social construction of sexuality among college-aged students?
if sex is a social construction, how have you been socialized to understand sexuality?

adrienne davis,
“the sexual economy of american slavery” (2002)
Key terms:
sexual economy
partus sequitur ventrem

sexual economy
the central role of black women’s sexual reproduction/childbirth to the U.S. economy during slavery. as well and the legal system that developed to justify and write into law the subordinated status of black women and black people
sexual economy: “convergence of sexual and reproductive relations with market and political relations” under which “enslaved women were sexually exploited for a variety of purposes: pleasure, politics, punishment, as well as profit” (117)

partus sequitur ventrem
“the child follows the mother”
legal doctrine that meant children inherited enslaved or free status from their mother
legally equated blackness with enslavement
made black women’s sexuality and reproduction a perpetual source of capital, property, enslaved labor

exploitation and sexual relations
allowed sexual exploitation and rape of enslaved persons (particularly women, though all could face sexual violence)
justified as promoting and preserving white women’s sexuality and femininity…using black women’s sexuality as the opposite of true femininity
rape a tool of power, domination, discipline, terror
white americans profited from enslaved women’s sexuality

major takeaways
uses of sexual economy as an analytical framework

demonstrates how slavery was not only racialized but also gendered and sexualized
01
reveals how gender’s specific ‘rules’ and history change according to those in power; gender is “brutally malleable” (119)
02
challenges separation of the intimate from the economic; the economy was (is) structured by sex, reproduction, forced intimate labor
03

case studies
additional week 1 readings
jane ward, “dude sex”
rupp and taylor, “straight girls kissing”
ho and tsang, “the (charmed) circle game”

jane ward, “dude sex”
disjuncture between sexual practice and sexual identity
how heterosexual white men can bolster their gender, sexual, race, and even class privilege when engaging in queer sex acts (framed as male bonding) without taking on (the burden of) queer identities
how these men employ race to articulate their desires for taboo sex while framing themselves as sexually normative
there are profound social stigmas against same gender sex acts, relations and identities, particularly for moc on dl
shows white straight masculinity is also racialized.

rupp and taylor, “straight girls kissing” (2010)
how do we see the disjuncture between sexual practice and identity playing out in a college context at ucsb?
“what this suggests is that heterosexual women’s options for physical intimacy are expanding…. but the line between lesbian and non-lesbian, whether bisexual or straight, remains firmly intact” (32)
discusses different ideas of sexual fluidity for intimacy between women vs. between men. how does the ward reading relate to this reading?
what do you find similar or different about iv hookup culture more recently?

ho and tsang, “the (charmed) circle game
people seen as unified or fixed positions can have multiple positions on the hierarchy
avoiding focus on one type of social power, instead points to how many types of social and (inter)personal power complicate experiences and coping/negotiation strategies

.MsftOfcThm_Background2_lumMod_75_lumOff_25_Fill {
fill:#486983;
}

.MsftOfcThm_Background2_lumMod_50_lumOff_50_Fill {
fill:#7B9CB6;
}