Gender and Sexual Relations - Assignment Example

31 March Gender and Sexual Relations: Response The idea of “doing gender” popularizes this suggestion that gender is not an inherent or innate quality of people in Western culture. Rather, it is more of a social construct that we witness in everyday life. According to research study of West and Zimmerman, it is this practice of doing gender in West which promotes façade and prevents people from being themselves. This practice has established a concrete system in West through which people are judged in terms of how poorly or successfully they comply with gendered social expectations. For example, it is due to this Western tradition of doing gender that a young boy who spends his time in quiet conversation instead of participating in games like football or wrestling is immediately considered a sissy by others. In contrast, girls are expected to engage in petty gossip by society and those who demonstrate interest in games like boxing or karate stand out among the rest because they fail to meet gendered social expectations. This is why research also claims that sex categorization in everyday life is established by “the socially required identificatory displays that proclaim one’s membership in one or the other category” (West and Zimmerman 127). Media portrayal of male and female gender also conforms to social expectations. The concept of doing gender forms the backbone of all art forms. This is because pretty girls are mostly chosen by directors to play roles of dumb, attention-seeking, and dependent people in movies. In contrast, the roles of intelligent masterminds, business tycoons, and shrewd politicians almost always go to men. West and Zimmerman seek to promote a new understanding of gender through their study (West and Zimmerman 125). They succeed in their plan because honest analysis of Western perspectives pertaining to sex and gender confirm what the authors seek to prove. Doing gender is about forcing people to conform to gender norms which means that gender is not a free entity (Spade and Valentine 477). Research also suggests that sex and gender are not independent from traditional social concerns in West. It is because sex and gender are strictly tied down that many people lack agency to affect or govern their life affairs. In many instances, people are so badly shackled by gendered societal expectations that they cannot take one step in life independent of those expectations. There is not real freedom to be seen when people are pressurized to conform to gendered social conventions. The idea of doing gender suggests that in Western culture, people think less of themselves as individual beings and more as gendered beings. For example, it is due to doing gender that Western culture, despite contemporary representation of everyday relationships, still remains quite restricted and portrayal of same-sex relationships is not met with widespread social approval. Same-sex relationships are disregarded because they stand in contrast to conventional societal expectations related to sex and gender. Why many homosexual men experience gay bashing for not behaving like “real” men is because of the enforcement of gender. Such patterns of doing gender can be witnessed everywhere (Spade and Valentine 477). Response 2 The human sexual response cycle was first introduced by Masters and Johnson in their work on human sexuality. Research conducted by these authors is of paramount significance because it familiarized people with a new, better, and advanced understanding of sexual stimulation. It revealed a variety of responses demonstrated by people in response to sexual stimulation. These responses in order of their occurrence constitute the human sexual response cycle first introduced in 1966. This study is quite significant because it was the first one of its kind. It serves as the foundation on which other human sexual response models introduced in later years are based. It is also significant because it took a feminist and biological approach to the human sexual response. The biological take on research implies that instead of relying on personal interviews with research participants or taking their personal histories pertaining to their sexual behaviors, Masters and Johnson directly observed subjects while they engaged in different kinds of sexual activities. This means that instead of depending on interviews or personal histories, Masters and Johnson entirely emphasized on the biology of sex as they analyzed different responses to sexual activity (Kerrigan). This factor contributes to significance of this research because never before had subjects been studied this way. The study is also significant on account of its feminist approach and healthy celebration of female sexuality. Prior to this study, female sexuality was a very sheltered subject. But, Masters and Johnson “brought female sexuality into public awareness” (Hockenbury cited in Kerrigan). Despite critical acclaim, Masters and Johnson’s study has been criticized in later years on account of inaccuracies found in the model. It should be kept in mind that all theories proposed to date based on Masters and Johnson’s model suffer from notable exceptions where a given sexual response is sometimes demonstrated by only some and not all subjects. This limits the impact of descriptions given by Masters and Johnson related to different stages of sexual response. When same results are not obtained every time the study is conducted again by other researchers, it means that original results cannot be 100% certified. It also implies that Masters and Johnson’s study and its results explain, at best, only some part of the reality. Results obtained from this study which design the human sexual response cycle cannot be generalized to a larger population. Research evidence presented by Roy Levin serves to criticize and defy Masters and Johnson’s model on many accounts. For example, the model implies that the vagina is lubricated in the arousal stage, while reality is that labia have their own lubricant which is produced during arousal. This aspect of the human sexual response has been left untouched by Masters and Johnson. Also, lubrication is described as the first sign of arousal in women, while reality is that the first sign of physiological arousal is increase in blood flow to the vagina (Levin). This suggests that many aspects of specific mechanisms underlying the sexual arousal process are incorrect, unexplained, or untouched in Masters and Johnson model. Response 3 Alfred Kinsey was an American biologist and sexologist who is credited for making immense contributions in the field of human sexuality. His research-based description of sexual behavior of the human male, also called the Kinsey Reports, paved the path toward an enhanced and deeper understanding of human sexual behavior. Kinsey helped to solve many mysteries and ambiguities surrounding the intricate subject of male sexual behavior. The purpose of Kinsey’s sexuality research was to help people understand a human male’s sexual response or experience at a given time. The Kinsey scale which is also called the Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating scale seeks to demonstrate that the nature of human male’s sexual response and experience does not remain fixed throughout the course of life. Rather, most males report some kind of homosexual experience at some stage in life despite identifying as heterosexuals. It is claimed that a majority of human male population “has at least some homosexual experience between adolescence and old age” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin). Kinsey’s methodology to collect data has received criticism. This is because he also interviewed child molesters in the course of his study to collect evidence. His collaboration with child molesters has raised objections. However, child molesters were interviewed among other males to obtain honest answers about sexuality on subjects which had been previously considered taboo. Kinsey’s sampling methods also received criticism. The credibility of sample selection was questioned as males from prisons and prostitution formed big portions of the samples used. This is why it was argued that Kinsey’s findings cannot be generalized to a larger human male population because they are based on a questionable sample population. Findings of Kinsey’s research on sexual behavior in the human male revealed the famous 10 percent figure which is still used to represent the homosexual population in the US. However, this figure cannot be considered true because Kinsey’s research is based on multiple flaws (Blake 167). A significant portion of the samples came from prisons which meant that they could not have heterosexual relations “by nature of their confinement” (Blake 167). Kinsey’s finding that sexuality is bound to change over time cannot be considered true because those human males who were imprisoned did not have homosexual relations by choice or because their sexuality changed at a given time. Kinsey’s study about human males’ sexual behavior professes that sexual response can be different at different times because sexuality is prone to change. However, Kinsey’s own choices in respect to sampling serve to deny this claim. It is because a majority of prison inmates reported having homosexual experiences only in prison. A study seeking to prove volunteer error in Kinsey’s research by Maslow and Sakoda also comments that several hundred male prostitutes were made research participants. These male prostitutes, like prison inmates could not have heterosexual relations not by personal choice, but by nature of their profession which required them to have relations with men (Blake 167). Besides volunteer errors, there is also this other fact that different results have been obtained after Kinsey’s research in other studies. Different figures of exclusively homosexual men have been reported in different studies. Response 4 Kimmel in chapter 5, The Social Construction of Gender Relations, argues that our gender identities are both voluntary and enforced. When we say that gender identities are socially constructed, it is suggested that who we are is a combination of who we choose to become and how our society coerces us into compliance with its rules (Kimmel 100). Kimmel’s critique of sex-role theory is highly informative and enlightening. His critique is based on various arguments advocated by other sociologists. This critique is used a foundation for urging people to move “toward an explanation of the social construction of gender relations” (Kimmel 106). In chapter 5, Kimmel argues that gender difference is the result or a product of gender inequality. It should not be considered the cause of gender inequality. This is deduced by Kimmel after lengthy examination of the social construction of gender inequality and difference. According to sex-role theory, gender is a thing possessed by a person because biological differences between the sexes determine gender. In contrast to this viewpoint of sex-role theory, Kimmel argues that gender is not a thing that can be possessed by a person. Rather, it should be seen as “a situated accomplishment which is every bit as much an aspect of interaction as of identity” (Coulter). Sex-role theory is inadequate because power differences between genders are not accounted for when discussing gender. It is not discussed why virtually every society in the world is male-dominant. It is because of power differences between genders. It is because individuals alone are not gendered. Rather, in accordance with Kimmel’s viewpoint, institutions with which we interact in our daily lives are also gendered. This interaction in part shapes gender of a person. In addition to being criticized on grounds of not attaching importance to power differences and gendered institutions, sex-role theory is also criticized and considered inadequate by Kimmel on other grounds. For example, the theory has received criticism for being excessively dependent on coercion. Conservative and conformity are also excessively emphasized by the role theory. It has been criticized for being too supportive of conformity when there is always some room for creativity in most of the roles. Problems with role theory also pick momentum when sex differences are emphasized, but power differences are not taken into consideration. It should be remembered that sex difference is the product of gender inequality, not its cause. Therefore, power differences should be emphasized because they serve to explain why there is so much gender inequality in every society. If sex-role theory is held true, it is not explained why there is male dominance around the globe since the dawn of time because power differences are not accounted for in this theory. Sex-role theories lay great emphasis on many different types of sex differences. These differences serve to promote gender stereotypes. For example, men are typically portrayed as strong, fierce, and independent-minded beings. In contrast, women are promoted as attention-seeking and dependent individuals. Social positions resulting from such stereotypical gender perceptions put women inferior to men. Works cited: Blake, Chris. Swimming Against the Current: Living for the God You Love. Pacific Press Publishing, 2007. Print. Coulter, B.G. “The Gendered Society.” Canadian Journal of Sociology (2000). Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Kerrigan, Larisa. Masters and Johnson. Psychistofwomen.umwblogs.org, 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Kimmel, Michael S. The Gendered Society. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Kinsey, Alfred C., Pomeroy, Wardell R., Martin, Clyde C. “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.” American Journal of Public Health 93.6 (2003): 894–898. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Levin, Roy J. “Critically revisiting aspects of the human sexual response cycle of Masters and Johnson: Correcting errors and suggesting modifications.” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 23.4 (2008): 393-399. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Spade, Joan Z., and Valentine, Catherine G. The Kaleidoscope of Gender: Prisms, Patterns, and Possibilities. Pine Forge Press, 2010. Print. West, Candace, and Zimmerman, Don H. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 1.2 (1987): 125-151. Print. Read More