Chauncey CH 3

I though Chauncey's CH 3 reading provided a really interesting look at the way a majority of American society views sexual identity in relation to sexual acts. We create a huge dichotomy between hetero and homosexual behavior and what that means as far as an overall sexual identity. If a guy went out one night and decided to have sex with another guy, he would then be labeled as a homosexual by most Americans (though I suppose some would label him as a bisexual if his previous behavior included some heterosexual actions). This paper, however, outlines a culture in which this behavior only relegated a person to the homosexual category if they assumed the submissive position in said acts.

This cultural view of homosexual behavior reminded me a lot of another culture we read about in Psychology of Sexuality, that being the Romans. The Roman men would engage in behavior that was not shunned by society with other men and boys that they would mentor. The men used these sexual acts as a display of power and dominance (either by superseding someone through an act, showing their dominance to a mentor or lesser man, or showing submission to a man of higher social standing). This seemed oddly familiar to the chapter's explanation that men were only looked down upon in homosexual behavior when they allowed another man to penetrate them or play the submissive role.

In addition it's confusing to me why the current social constructs of sexual identity in America have such a didactic nature when many other societies have viewed sexuality as a spectrum, with people able to fall anywhere between exclusive homosexual and exclusive heterosexual, as Alfred Kinsey defined the relationship through his research. In my opinion, this segregation of identities allows for easier persecution of homosexuals and other sexuality-identified groups as a group that is "not of the common nature," when really, there is no common nature, people can have varying degrees and amounts of desire for various sexual activities.