This site uses cookies. By continuing, your consent is assumed. Learn more

120.9fm shares

Social construction theory problems in the history of sexuality

opinion

Please upload essays, bibliography, articles, review, summaries, presentations, research papers, thesis proposal, case studies, coursework, creative writing, and any other study resources. Sexuality and gender went together, it seemed, but in ways that were subject to change. Sexuality and Identity - A second Impetus for the development of social construction theory arose from issues that emerged in the examination of male homosexuality in nineteenthcentury Europe and America.

Nor was there any evidence of a homosexual subculture or individuals whose subjective sense of identity was organized around what we understand as sexual preference or identity. And if not, what were their points of origin and conditions for development?

An Enlightened Conversation

If identical physical acts had different subjective meanings, how was sexual meaning constructed? If sexual subcultures come into being, what leads to their formation? Sexuality as a Contested Domain - State-level society shows that sexuality is an actively contested political and symbolic terrain in which groups struggle to implement sexual programs and alter sexual arrangements and ideologies.

The Development of Social Construction Models, - It is true that all reject trans-historical and transcultural definitions of sexuality, and suggest instead that sexuality is mediated by historical and cultural factors. Contrasts sharply with more middle-ground constructionist theory, which implicitly accepts an inherent desire which is then constructed in terms of acts, identity, community and object choice.

Bury, M.R. (), 'Social Constructionism...

Social construction literature, making its first appearance in the mids, demonstrates a gradual development of the ability to imagine that sexuality is constructed. Cultural, Influence Models of Sexuality, - Just as sexuality itself remained an unexamined construct, the theoretical foundations remained unexamined, unnamed, and implicit, as if they were so inevitable and natural that there could be little dispute or choice about this standard, almost generic, approach.

Variation was a key finding in many studies. Tracking its use through various articles and books shows that sexuality includes many wildly different things: Sexuality is not only related to gender but blends easily, and is often conflated, with it. Sexuality, gender arrangements, masculinity and femininity are assumed to be connected, even interchangeable.

The confusion springs from our own work folk beliefs that: Gender and sexuality are seamlessly knit together. The cultural influence model assumes that sexual acts carry stable and universal significance in terms of identity and subjective meaning. Cross-cultural surveys could fairly chart the distribution of same- or oppositegender sexual contact or the frequency of sexual contact before marriage.

The cultural influence model recognizes Social construction theory problems in the history of sexuality in the occurrence of sexual behaviour and in cultural attitudes which encourage or restrict behaviour, but not in the meaning of the behaviour itself. Human sexuality was malleable, and capable of assuming different forms.

News feed