Is sexuality a social construct?

[Princess Luna]

I am currently reading a book on sexuality in ancient Rome, and it seems to clash with the modern notion of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The idea that people are predisposed to be attracted to one gender or the other (or in some cases both) from birth. If is this is the actual case, then we should see in ancient Rome a majority of people who were primarily attracted to the opposite gender, and smaller minorities who were attracted primarily to the same gender and both genders, respectivly. but this wasn't the case, there was a almost unanimous view in Rome (and several other cultures) that the male body and female body were equally pleasurable.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I think this has been common in most cultures. I think that sexual orientation (rather than sexuality itself) is pretty much of a social construct.

If I may ask, what is the book you're reading?

[Princess Luna]

Roman homosexuality: Ideologies of masculinity in classical antiquity by Craig A. Williams

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think this has been common in most cultures. I think that sexual orientation (rather than sexuality itself) is pretty much of a social construct.

I trust you mean the concept of sexual orientation is a social construct rather than the actual attraction? Essentially you mean the labeling of people?

[Franz Fanonipants]

yes
/thread

[black magick hustla]

I trust you mean the concept of sexual orientation is a social construct rather than the actual attraction? Essentially you mean the labeling of people?

nah i am pretty sure sexual attraction has a big social component too. i think most sexuality as we deal with it today is very artificial

[Lobotomy]

i think most sexuality as we deal with it today is very artificial

how come?

[Franz Fanonipants]

how come?

commercialization of sexuality

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As a note 'sexuality' and 'sexual orientation' are two different terms.

[runequester]

As a note 'sexuality' and 'sexual orientation' are two different terms.

Enlighten a comrade, since this is something I haven't really studied much?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Enlighten a comrade, since this is something I haven't really studied much?

Sexuality,as I understand it,refers to a person's sexual health and to sexual acts in a broad sense.This leaves out any mention of the genders and levels everything down to a standard set of what sex is,the repercussions,effects,etc.

Sexual orientation,on the other hand,is the gender one is sexually attracted to.

During my schooling,and in conversations with other radical queers,I have only heard of these two terms being used with those definitions.Much of the time to two are conflated in order to save time but in practice each has a precise rendering (no matter how semantic it may be).

[hatzel]

I lean very much towards that position; social mores certainly have a monumental influence on individual sexuality, perhaps the most significant single influence, greater than any genetic predisposition or personal life experiences. I happen to believe that such a conclusion is often rejected under the illusion that it lends credence to reactionary claims that those with 'deviant' sexualities (whatever that means in a given society) have merely taking a 'wrong' choice, and can therefore 'right' their ways, given the malleability of sexuality. However, the oft-forwarded alternative - that these sexualities are wholly pre-social, something inherent and natural in the individual - is not, in my opinion, any more liberatory, as it in turn may be used to legitimise attempts to 'cure' those of 'deviant' sexualities through the use of medicine or genetic manipulation, to reshape this supposedly inherent nature.

I don't think one can ever speak of an individual sexuality disconnected from social mores, given the impact they have in promoting certain forms of sexual expression and repressing others. There can be no 'sexually neutral' society. They can be no sexuality which is not socially constructed.

[Scarlet Fever]

Sexual orientation is a social construct in that it is conceived in terms of gender--itself a social construct.

[Pretty Flaco]

Sexual orientation is a social construct in that it is conceived in terms of gender--itself a social construct.

The difference between sex and gender is important to note here. Sex is what organs you possess and gender is a socialized role.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Technically everything which we attach labels to is a social construct because it helps us better understand the world.This doesn't negate the factual structure of the things we label, however.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think sexual identity is a social construct, but sexual orientation isn't.

[Tovarisch]

Not really. Humans have been born to reproduce, and in order to make reproduction more "pleasurable", we have evolved to crave sex, some more than others. Many ancient cultures, such as Rome and Greece, have capitalized on human sexuality, that's why they always drew symbols of fertility (dicks) on walls and vases

Sexuality only became a "taboo" subject once a bunch of religious nutballs claimed that everything that feels good is somehow bad (see Catholic Church oppression). If only religion didn't exist.

Sex is a gift from nature, and oppressing this gift is no way to go

[NewLeft]

Not really. Humans have been born to reproduce, and in order to make reproduction more "pleasurable", we have evolved to crave sex, some more than others. Many ancient cultures, such as Rome and Greece, have capitalized on human sexuality, that's why they always drew symbols of fertility (dicks) on walls and vases

Sexuality only became a "taboo" subject once a bunch of religious nutballs claimed that everything that feels good is somehow bad (see Catholic Church oppression). If only religion didn't exist.

Sex is a gift from nature, and oppressing this gift is no way to go

Yet the catholics were very successful at reproduction.

[S. Zetor]

The idea that people are predisposed to be attracted to one gender or the other (or in some cases both) from birth. If is this is the actual case, then we should see in ancient Rome a majority of people who were primarily attracted to the opposite gender, and smaller minorities who were attracted primarily to the same gender and both genders, respectivly. but this wasn't the case, there was a almost unanimous view in Rome (and several other cultures) that the male body and female body were equally pleasurable.

Well I think there's both social and biological factors there. I'm not familiar with the book that you mention, but I'm just thinking whose ideas the "unanimous view" is based on. Does it reflect only the views of the literate upper classes who left behind stuff for historians to interpret? I don't know, just asking. But the same problem is with Foucault's history of sexuality, because the methods he uses cannot tell us anything about how things were perceived in a remote village because nobody went to the psychiatrist or wrote diaries (see Mark Poster: Foucault, Marxism and History, it's online somewhere).

If I recall right, the concepts of hetero- and homosexuality were "invented" in the late 1800s, but I think that even though this is a legitimate view on it, it's kind of superficial. In my opinion it would be the same to say that people had no idea of gravity (= things falling if you drop them etc) before Newton's theory of gravity. Indeed they didn't, if you conceive gravity as some integral part of a "theory of gravity" or "newtonian worldview" or something like that, but that's all very academic in my opinion.

I think it's the same applies to sex and sexual attraction. We're just animals, and I don't think culture makes us THAT different. Sexual attraction to the opposite is a necessary component for sexually procreating animals to have (in general; I'm not saying there isn't individual exceptions etc). It's another matter what is considered "acceptable" in any given era (extramarital heterosexual sex, homosexuality, masturbation etc), sexuality is controlled socially just like other "normal" things are controlled, and some forms of behaviour (sexual or not) are considered acceptable and some aren't. BTW I think that the culturally expressed need to police who is a man and who is a woman might be based on this as well (though not in a deterministic way)... after all it's important for sexually procreating species to know who you can successfully procreate with. There's also phenomena like sexual jealousy (stronger for some people than others) which I believe have a related basis, instead of being just some "bourgeois need to own" or whatever. Not all evolutionary psychology is crap in my opinion. See for example "darwinian feminist" Griet Vandermassen's work.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

The whole lot of it is socially constructed. Orientation is a spectrum, and there are people that don't fit into it (ahem /b/). Even biological sex is constructed. There's no inherent reason to separate people by genitalia and not by femur width or what have you. Then you have hermaphrodites and transsexuals, who are sometimes still exceptions from the construct.

[zoot_allures]

I am currently reading a book on sexuality in ancient Rome, and it seems to clash with the modern notion of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The idea that people are predisposed to be attracted to one gender or the other (or in some cases both) from birth. If is this is the actual case, then we should see in ancient Rome a majority of people who were primarily attracted to the opposite gender, and smaller minorities who were attracted primarily to the same gender and both genders, respectivly. but this wasn't the case, there was a almost unanimous view in Rome (and several other cultures) that the male body and female body were equally pleasurable.
This might be the book you're reading, but one of the primary books on this topic is "Bisexuality in the Ancient World" by Eva Cantarella, and it's well worth checking out if you're interested in the topic. It seems like the consensus at the moment is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" or even "bisexuality" in ancient Greece and Rome, because those concepts just wouldn't have been at all relevant to how they viewed sexuality. To people in ancient Greece and Rome, the primary dichotomy was active vs passive (the penetrating and the penetrated). Your identity was defined much more by your sexual position than by who you had sex with. At some times in ancient Roman history, for example, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to penetrate another man; if you were the recipient, on the other hand, you might have faced severe ridicule and punishment.

Anyway, I'd say that sexual orientation, at least, is basically a social construct.

[human strike]

Yes, sexual orientation, just like gender, is indeed a social construct.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think identity and orientation are being confused in this thread.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Everything is a social construct because in order to live we must attribute titles and names onto things. However, this said it doesn't mean that the legitimacy of these things being labeled doesn't exist.

[DOOM]

I trust you mean the concept of sexual orientation is a social construct rather than the actual attraction? Essentially you mean the labeling of people?
Sorry for pushing this thread but I came to exactly this conclusion and would like to know if this is actually true.
I've been searching through the internet a little bit but i couldn't find a proper answer so I'm going to ask you guys.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Yet the catholics were very successful at reproduction.

well, theoretically speaking Catholics kind of have a duty to reproduce (to make more Catholics) based on Genesis 9:7 "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." You're just not allowed sex unless it's for reproduction.

[tallguy]

I am currently reading a book on sexuality in ancient Rome, and it seems to clash with the modern notion of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The idea that people are predisposed to be attracted to one gender or the other (or in some cases both) from birth. If is this is the actual case, then we should see in ancient Rome a majority of people who were primarily attracted to the opposite gender, and smaller minorities who were attracted primarily to the same gender and both genders, respectivly. but this wasn't the case, there was a almost unanimous view in Rome (and several other cultures) that the male body and female body were equally pleasurable.
I would surmise that sexual orientation is largely genetic in foundation, but may be partially overwritten by cultural norms and practices. Pretty much like all other primary human behaviours. We humans are complicated social creatures who use sex for far more than mere procreation. Though, of course, at a fundamental level, that is it's Darwinian "purpose". From a Dawinian "perspective", though, it just comes down to the averages. If enough humans, enough of the time, use sex to procreate, then natural selection is unlikely to deselect those behaviours occurring at the margins. Though, there would be strong selection pressure acting against exclusive homosexuality if it consistently occurred in the majority of the distribution.

In the case of bi-sexuality, natural selection will have next to no effect on the margins and a diminished effect even on the majority of the distribution of human sexual behaviour. One would suppose there would be some small effect on bisexual behaviour, however, in an especially tough environment since any time spent homosexually copulating is time not spent heterosexually copulating, meaning fewer genes being passed on that also facilitate similar bisexual behaviour.

So what do we find in the world?:

We find, at the margins of the distribution, a small but consistent percentage who are exclusively homosexual (despite significant dangers of being openly homosexual in some cultures) and then (depending on whether cultural norms and practices allow for it) a significantly larger proportion who are bisexual and, finally, a majority who are heterosexual.

So, to go back to the OP's points made about ancient Rome. Assuming those points are correct, this would be explained by the probable bisexual orientation of a significant minority of humans who may express that bisexuality (or not) depending on the cultural norms and values pertinent to a given time and space.