By Raha Boshra
We live in a sexual society, as sex is a need for humans, much like food and water. However, this all depends, as some might question the idea of whether sex is natural or not at all. Societal construction has changed the way that people view sex, with the involvement of race, class, religion, and other beliefs. If you are traditionally Jewish or Catholic, for example, you will likely have been taught that God equipped men and women with an innate drive to procreate. If you are of a liberal religious or a nonreligious background, sexologists such as Masters and Johnson or psychologists such as Freud have most likely shaped your beliefs about sex (Seidman, 2014).
However, there are both weak and strong versions of this claim that sex is social. The weak one simply states that people are born with a sexual nature, while the strong one suggests that we are not born with a sexual nature, rather born with bodies that have the potential to experience sensuality by learning what we observe in sexual experiences and their meanings in society. Social factors determine which desires are sexual and which serve as identities, which desires and identities are acceptable, and what forms of sexual intimacy are considered appropriate (Seidman, 2014).
Our concept of what is natural and what is unnatural is constantly evolving and often the source of conflict. For example, throughout most of the nineteenth century, many Americans, including the most educated, condemned masturbation, interracial sex, and sex outside of marriage as unnatural and a social danger (Seidman, 2014). This, however, is not the case today, as time changes what society thinks of various societal topics. So, having a social view on sex and sexuality results in considerable moral uncertainty on these topics, as arguments could exist in return. The lack of this view results in people forming harmful opinions about people’s lives. Sure, it will not get rid of stereotypes, but it will make us mindful about our beliefs on sex and the consequences of them, as long as no one is getting hurt.
The distinction between positive and negative social significance is not linear and often contradictory (Hawkes, 1996). Negative and positive associations with sex exist, as one could be a source of fear, anxiety, and embarrassment. On the other hand, it could be a source of satisfaction, happiness, and fulfilment. Healthy and good sex is even the backbone of keeping a partner and a happy relationship.
Foucault’s 1985 work on sexual ethics in Classical Antiquity offers some insight into both conceptualizations of sexual desire and its negative as well as positive consequences, pointing out that the concept of pleasure, or Aphrodisia, entailed the unification of desire, the source of pleasure, and its experience (Hawkes, 1996). The sources of Aphrodisia were three factors: Eating, drinking, and copulation; all considered expected and normal to seek out these pleasures. The need to repeat these experiences was Desire.
On a personal note, sex and sexuality are not as limited as one might think. As much as society is unpredictable, so are the definitions of what one could think sex and sexuality are. Gender is a social construct, and biology is complicated, as there are even more than two sexes, unlike what many might think. Many might disagree with this, as these are more modernized ideas in the psychology of sex and gender. However, this all circles back to time passing and changing everything, and traditional views coming off as more harmful and “argumentative”. As mentioned by Seidman, con. But as of now, many of us recognize that such beliefs are mistaken, may be ideological, and contribute to creating racial and gender differences and inequalities (Seidman, 2014).
References:
Seidman, S. (Oct. 10, 2014). The Social Construction of Sexuality, 3rd Edition. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]]. Retrieved from vbk://9780393270235
Hawkes, G. (Mar. 16, 1996). Sociology of Sex and Sexuality. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]]. Retrieved from vbk://9780335231737
Blog Site 