Hierarchies of Sexual Value
As soon as we are born, the societal system denies us the choice of sex due to its sexual stigma. The barbaric public critic and review of sex slows down the evolvement required in the valuation of sex. The topic on sex is equally important as the likes of poverty and war. A revolutionary theory of sexuality needs to describe present erotic inequalities and injustices; in such a way that delivers the language and actions of repressive sex perceptions. Presently, there exists repressive features that squash the development of progressive theories. For instance, sexual essentialism defines sex as un-evolving, asocial, and historically constant. Such entities hold that sex is rather psychological than sociological. This article explains what Gayle Rubin meant by the hierarchical of sexual value.
Gayle’s Review
Gayle uses Foucalt’s work that criticizes the notion that erotism is a mere form of libido that wills to entangle from chains of social slavery due to the growing social premises of sex, instead of traditional grounds of sex. Gayle notes that erotic irregularities embed in five ideologies that if failed to address, then it would mean continued sexual oppression. Among the ideologies is the hierarchical system of sex valuation. In the present Western world, communities still gratify erotic acts as per the its moral value on the erotic pyramid. Ranking highest is the married and reproductive heterosexuals. Next is the monogamous and unmarried heterosexuals. Individual sex remains ambiguous. Committed and stable homosexual couples slowly go up the pyramid since they are formally viewed as moral. Gayle notes that casual homosexuals who operate in bars and baths, remain to be despised. The lowest class of sex remain to be prostitutes transsexuals, fetishist, porn stars, transvestites and sadomasochists.
Gayle continues to criticize the basis of classification by negating the fact that persons who rank high are rewarded more. The married heterosexuals receive appraisals such as mentally fit, respectable, legal, social capable and culturally right. On the hand, the lower classes of sex become mentally unfit, disrespectful, socially incapable, and culturally wrong. She notes that such extremities of stigma stem from sanctions of religion, medicine, and psychology. Religious stigmatization goes to lengths of acclaiming lowers forms of sex as sins only redeemable by appease- or worse condemnable. She negates the notion issued by psychiatrics that lower sex is a form of a defection or bifunctionality of personality. In addition, psychiatrics acts such as masochism a reflection of aggressive emotions, while homosexuality reflects signs of immaturity.
Gayle goes ahead to notice that such propaganda permeates that variation in erotism is harmful, unhealthy, degenerating, anti-communistic, and arising from witchcraft. A reflective view arises concerning societal cultures and sexual cultures. It is agreeable that people assume value and appreciation when it comes to variation traditional cultures. It is even argued that the varieties in traditions is what makes the world unique and interesting. Why is it that variety in sex forms is dimmed as inappropriate, if not degenerating?
The sex pyramid is further morally culminated as either lying on the ‘Charmed Circle’ or ‘Outer Limits’ (Gayle, p.13) depending on the morals exhibited. She defines the charmed circle as a category that entails good, blessed, usual and normal sex; while the outer limits comprise of bad, abnormal, and unusual sex. Gayle notes that the persons such as married heterosexuals have a good and normal sex since they establish a sex that is limited to coupled relations that happens at home excepting sexual orgies. On the other hand, the outer limit sex acts are abnormal and immoral since they diminish the establish of serious relations by either been masturbatory, promiscuous, commercial, and deriving erotism from fetish objects. Gayle attempts to reason the basis of drawing the line of morality when it comes to sex varieties.
In conclusion, more studies need to develop theories that the define the moment at which sex variation becomes degenerating. Also, the society should establish grounds that limit valuation of sex in terms of moral uprightness and wrongness. If at all religion and society considers everyone morally equal, despite their gender, political and racial orientation; then why should sexual orientation be excluded from the system?