Sexual Cultures - Essay Example

Sexual cultures Social Cultures Citizenship is closely associated with the heterosexuality and the of marriage. This relationship along with the construction of intimate and sexual citizenship has been a significant theme in the studies of sexuality across several disciplines. According Richardson (1998: p.56) normal citizenship has largely been constituted as heterosexuality, which is a necessary basis for full citizenship. In addition, according to theorists of sexual citizenship, citizenship claims are also based on male privilege. However, Bhattacharyya (2002: p.23) argues that the theoretical construct of sexual citizenship is built on the perception of sexual minorities such as gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to discuss the relationship between sexual partnerships, citizenship and the state. According to Giddens (1992: p.102), sexual citizenship theory, homosexuals are viewed as sexual minorities: hence, second-class citizens. If citizenship confers some rights and denies them to certain citizens, it means that those people cannot be classified as full citizens in that country. For instance, in America, homosexuals are denied the responsibility to join military service; hence, denied full citizenship. However, sexual citizenship does not refer to formal regulations of citizenship only, but also to legal regulations of sexuality such as sexual practices, public entitlements, sexual speech and marriage. These regulations link to citizenship status and require proof of citizenship. The recent change in focus and meaning of sexual politics has associated with the idea of inclusion and integration of gay and lesbians into the mainstream society as normal and respectable citizens (Faderman, 1981: p.100). Normalization and citizenship were the primary goals and key concepts that appealed in social change demands. Heterosexuals are viewed as better citizens than homosexuals and had access to core institutions such as marriage, family and military. Thus, gay men and lesbians viewed otherwise and as minorities want to share, and be included in the same responsibilities and rights. In addition, homosexuals are defined as abnormal, inferior, subordinate and unequal to the normative heterosexuals as well as being seen as the sexual other (Jamieson, 1999: p.32). The profound change in the meaning of both citizenship and sexuality has led to gay men and lesbians to be accepted and recognized as individuals who deserve equal rights and are appropriate sexual citizens, just as the heterosexuals. Richardson has debated that since citizenship is premised on traditional heterosexuality, homosexuals lack authorized security from discrimination or persecution, and have partial political rights, restricted contact to full social citizenship, even in the jurisdictions of education, employment, parenting, housing and welfare. Homosexuality is regarded as a threat to the state: thus, homosexuals are barred from the building of the state and nationality. The crossing of territorial borders is instantaneously a crossing the social citizenship boundary; they are cast back into noncitizens or less than complete residents as they are made again as unmarried. As people cross territorial borders, this causes their marriage to be made null and void. This is in contradiction with the cultural veracity of their marriage also and does cross the borders. Although sexual expression is said to be a private and natural phenomena, it also has the public and cultural aspects. Thus, theories such as gender studies, post-modernism and queer have been used to break breakdown these aspects. Moreover, sexual citizenship links the public and the private aspects of sexual expression and emphasizes on the political and cultural aspects. Sedgwick (1985: p.65) claims that the private aspect of sexual expression cannot exist without open sexual cultures. For instance, homosexuality can be consummated in the bedroom, but first the partners meet in public areas such bars, media like the internet, and streets. According to Jamieson (1999: p.35), the concept of sexual citizenship involves aspects such as bodily autonomy, rights of free expression, institutional inclusion and spatial themes. The right of free expression deals with marginalized groups such as sexual minorities and women. In the marriage institution, most women and girls depend on their husbands, fathers or other male figures in authority. On the other hand, gay men and lesbians are usually condemned as irresponsible people in the society, which leads to their silence. They do not have the civic right to express their sexual desires and experiences, and they even denied access to media in order to express themselves. McNair (2002: p.150) argues that the free expression of sexuality could mean that the public, including schools may not continue to be dominated by male heterosexuality. For instance, pornography is a field of sexual expression, which is said to exploit women and minors. However, some people argue that it is a legitimate form of sexual expression so long as it respects other peoples rights involved just in other labor domains. For this reason, some countries have stipulated different ages of consent in laws against minors. There are different limits set for different activities such as heterosexuals, homosexuals, married and unmarried partners. Also, some countries have created laws against hate speech in order to prevent insults that are usually directed towards gays and lesbians. For instance, Muslim leaders, physicians or some Christians use the freedom of expression to attack homosexuals by calling them criminals, sick people or other worse names. Sexual citizenship also refers to embodiment, which includes contraceptive and reproductive rights for women (Sedgwick, 1985: p.82). Additionally, it also protects the rights of women in making decisions with regards to abortion and birth control. However, for homosexuals, embodiment involves their freedom to engage in certain sexual acts that are prohibited by the local and national authorities. Thus, various criminal laws have been enforced in order to prevent access to sexuality by restricting information, forbidding certain acts, banning imagery by making certain groups of people dependent on the authority of others or by imposing the ages of consent. In many institutions, the minority groups are denied the chance to engage fully as sexual citizens. For instance, in some countries homosexuals have been restrained from marrying and taking part in the military except in a few European countries. However, Richardson (1998: p.102) argues that marriage is a private contract between people and the state should not be involved. This is because; failure of the state to prohibit marriage between homosexual couples, but allowing heterosexual couples constitutes discrimination. In addition, there are many institutions that privilege the nuclear family as an opening for sexual citizenship rights for the social outsiders. The denial of participation to sexual minors and social equality is also evident in areas such as education, health care, housing, labor markets, partner benefits, and immigration laws among others. Coates (1996: p.101) claims that there is not a single country that has given equality to all citizens in these sectors. This is a clear example of how homosexuals and other erotic groups in the society are not fully recognized as citizens. The issue of space is also an area of interest to sexual citizenship. Richardson (1998: p.102) states that women have always been restricted to a private world of home and families. Other minority groups such as homosexuals are also restricted to a subculture of bars normally located in unsafe areas cities. Such areas are not safe; thus, they are not provided with the basic civil right of protection against violence and abuse. In such private and hidden places, the spatial themes of sexual citizens are highly unacknowledged. According to Richardson (1998: p.102), agency is limited by homophobia of straight male society, as well as sexism. For this reason, establishments of gay streets, venues and communities have remained contested due to spatial themes. However, lesbians and gay people need public space to express their sexual desires, debate politics and find partners in order to enact their civic rights. In Norway, marriage was considered a guarantee for the social welfare of women, as well as children since men were the providers. However, in 1960’s, sexual partnerships and cohabitation began changing, which led to changes in the cohabitation and partnership regulations. The homosexuals started began challenging the dominance of the nuclear family and heterosexuality, which resulted in the legalization of gay marriage. Cohabitation between unmarried partners also became recognized by the law due the high number of partners who choose to cohabit after leaving their parental home. However, marriage legislation is still the key pillar of sexual citizenship in Norway. According to Coates (1996: p. 119), sexual citizenship must include a clear understanding of the ways in which immigration laws regulate sexual behaviors in the country. Also, it should explore the relationship between the regulations of sexual minorities and non-citizens in metaphorical and concrete terms. In the United States, the high numbers of immigrants have made it difficult to deal with the issue of citizenship. Richardson (1998: p. 213) argues that homosexual individuals tolerate being partial citizens unlike the heterosexuals since they must remain in the private sphere without any public recognition in the political society. In addition, lesbians and gays are mainly excluded from the construction of the nation, as well as nationality since homosexuality is seen as a threat to the state. Bhattacharyya (2002: p.44) argues that homosexuals lack legal protection from harassment, discrimination, and full political rights and social citizenship due to institutionalization of heterosexuality. The efforts to promote same sex marriage in the America started in 1970s but in 2004 political debate about homosexuality arose. Skeptics, advocates and conservatives of the same sex marriage raise the question of citizenship status of the sexual partners. They have different views on the effects of homosexual marriages on citizenship, and the policy. However, they do not agree on whether homosexual marriages bring the possibility of ending second-class citizenship for the partners. In the America, heterosexuality is a necessary characteristic for full citizenship (Coates, 1996: p. 123). This means that opposite sex married partners in the United States have full political rights, legal protection from harassment and discrimination, and social citizenship compared to same sex married couples. There are several policies that are related to citizenship for homosexual and heterosexual couples. However, McNair (2002: p.156) argues that attempts to change heterosexual privilege may lead to a limited form of citizenship for the sexual minorities. For instance, the establishment of the same sex marriage may not include the single individuals not ready to get married, as well as those whose chosen families do not follow the marriage model. Moreover, the United States has regulations that relate to citizenship mainly aimed at sexual practices. A formal marital status in America is considered a building-block in the American immigration law. It states that a wife should submit to her husband. This law allows only family based immigrant visas to family members and includes the spouses, as well. Also, the immigration laws privileges sponsorship of spouses through the sponsorship of their spouses, who are legal permanent citizens. Additionally, it gives the immigration law gives power to petition for a family member or a spouse to the legal citizen rather than the immigrant, who is seeking a visa. However, marital status can lead to denial of entry in to the United States or deportation of an immigrant. Jamieson (1999: p.54) claims that family-based immigration provisions require that immigrants, as well as their families, are scrutinized by the government. The law engages itself in relationships even before marriage by giving visas to fiancé, which require couples to marry within three months of their partner’s entry to America. After marriage, the immigrants who applied for visas based on marriage are expected to prove that their marriage is a bona fide, not for the purpose of immigration. This is done by the immigration officials who scrutinized the marriage for evidence of children, cohabitation or financial commingling. Marriages that do not conform to these expectations are considered deceitful; hence, the immigrants are disqualified from visa application. Although most democratic countries have separated church and state, old sexual traditions of sexual citizenship still remain a significant aspect in many countries. For instance, most western countries value religious expression compared to sexual expression. Religious citizenship is widely recognized and exerts a strong influence in both politics and education compared to sexual citizenship, which is widely denied and neglected in such places. Moreover, in most African countries and Muslim, women and other minor erotic communities are denied sexual rights, and neglected in nations in Asian and Latin America. According to McNair (2002: p.154) only a few states outside Europe such as South Africa, Canada, Mexico, United States, Brazil, and Australia are actively involved in spreading civil rights to homosexuals. However, others such as Thailand and Japan do not have anti-homosexual criminal laws; thus, they do not offer legal protection to gays and lesbians. In addition, rights offered to homosexuals in other countries do not extend to transgender individuals, pedophiles or sadomasochists. In conclusion, Richardson (1998: p.98) states that sexual citizenship cannot be clearly defined. This is because sexual citizenship involves political and legal practices, as well as cultural representations and practices that are not quite clear. In addition, ignoring the concept of sexual citizenship is dangerous, as well as imperialistic because it creates an assumption that everybody is a legal citizen. For this reason, the United States has put in place regulations relating to citizenship based on sexual practices such as marital status immigration law that states that the wife should submit to the husband. Bibliography Bhattacharyya, G. (2002). Sexuality and Society: An Introduction, Routledge: Birmingham. Coates, J. (1996).Women talk: conversation between women friends, Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies, Polity Press: Stanford. Faderman, L. (1981). Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love between Women from the Sixteenth Century to the Present, Womens Press: Virginia. Jamieson, L. (1999). Intimacy: personal relationships in modern societies, Polity Press: Cambridge. McNair, B. (2002). Striptease culture: sex, media and the democratization of desire, Routledge: New York. Richardson, D (1998). ‘Sexuality and citizenship’, in Sociology, Vol. 32 no. 1 Sedgwick, E. K. (1985). Between men: English literature and male homo-social desire, Columbia University Press: New York. Read More