Thinking Sex: The Interconnective Dynamics Between Sexuality and Politics in The USA

The Intersection of Politics and Sexuality

Gayle Rubin’s essay “Thinking Sex” is a profound work detailing the history and influence of politics on ideas about sexuality in the United States. Rubin uses what are described as “moral panics” during the late 1800’s and mid to late 1900’s to explain how sexuality is repressed in western society. Rubin develops a theory to counter the sexual oppression and persecution of sexual minorities that is taking place during this time. Through this “radical theory of sex” that she established, Rubin identifies six ideological formations about sexuality that contribute to repressive attitudes about sexuality and sex in the United States (Rubin 9). Rubin's formation about sex negativity can be used within queer studies to explain attitudes about sex by analyzing how social norms and institutions contribute to the idea of sex as a negative force, and which forms of sex are approved of and why.

According to Rubin, sex negativity is the belief that sex is a “dangerous, destructive, negative force” (Rubin 11). Within this concept of sex negativity is a “charmed circle” that shows what kind of sex is perceived as acceptable, which in America in the early to mid 1900s would have been monogamous, heterosexual or procreative sex (Rubin 13). Due to the dominant beliefs and morals of the time period, stemming from religion and political culture, anything outside those limits was considered to be deviant. Many social institutions contribute to the idea of sex negativity be it education, religion, or medicine. Each of these institutions in society has a way of furthering sexual stratification in a social, cultural, or political way. There is a huge negative connotation linked to sex in general in today’s society, especially in the education system. Children are sill being taught abstinence only sex-ed, and are not taught about sexualities other than heterosexuality. Most of what we are taught about sex as children and even as adults revolves are sex negativity. As a society, we are not supposed to talk openly about sex. The current discourse on sex education is linked to the sex negativity that has existed for centuries. Aside from the institution of education, sex negativity is prevalent in everyday life. Individuals are shamed and shunned for participating in non-heterosexual sex. Rubin states that among deviant sexualities some of most detested include “transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries” (Rubin 12). These people that Rubin mentioned were outcasts in american society, they were not seen as normal and their sexuality was denounced. Society privileges the good and normal sexual acts while condemning those considered to be abnormal. Instead of relying on factors such as respect for ones partner, love, and consent, the system relies on shaming those acts which were outside of the “norm” that was established through social and cultural values during that time period.

In addition, Rubin’s inclusion and critique of sex negativity in her “radical theory of sex” help facilitate her argument that negative views surrounding sex further suppression and persecution against sexual minorities. Not only are there negative views about sexualities outside the “charmed circle”, but even sexual acts deemed “normal” are considered bad unless a “specific reason to exempt it has been established” (Rubin 11). Meaning, even heterosexual sex is condemned if it is being done for any reason other than procreation. Examining and critiquing sex negativity can help dispel beliefs around sex that are simply based on opinion and not on facts. Rubin’s beliefs regarding good and bad sex correspond to some of the beliefs discussed in “What were Rollin’ around in Bed With” by Amber Hollibaugh and Cherríe Moraga. In this piece of writing the two discuss their opinions along with similarities and differences they have in regards to the feminist movement. One quote in particular stands out in relation to Rubin’s essay and that is when they state “No matter how we play ourselves out sexually, we are all affected by the system inasmuch as our sexual values are filtered through a society where heterosexuality is considered the norm” (Hollibaugh/Moraga 63). This suggests that ones sexuality is always going to be compared to heterosexuality because it is considered the norm to everyone. This relates to the way in which Rubin differentiates between what was considered good sex, and what was considered bad sex during that that time period. Heterosexuality was deemed the only acceptable form of sex in which every other sexuality was judged against and compared to. Hollibaugh and Moraga also discuss femme and butch identities and what is considered a good representation of each. Butch being the primarily masculine role and femme being the primarily feminine role. This discussion about portrayals of personal identities and if it is being done the “right way” relates to the “right” and “wrong" forms of sex that Rubin discusses.

Sex negativity is important for queer studies scholars to keep in mind because it is something that still exists in present day society. Although the “charmed circle” is not as prevalent in society today, there are still some sexualities and sex acts that are favored over others. Some of the lines within the charmed circle have been blurred, but heterosexual, monogamous sex is still put on a pedestal and perceived as the “norm”. It is important for scholars to study this outdated belief because if not challenged, it will not go away. Even though a goal of eliminating sex negativity as a whole may seem far fetched, small steps can be taken when scholars study the causes and effects of sex negativity and what can be done to achieve a more sex-positive society.