THE SOCIAL NATURE OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

A UNIVERSAL CONCEPTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
REPRODUCTION: JUST HOW RELEVANT IS IT?
THE TWO KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUALITY
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SELECTED REFERENCES AND COMMENTS

A UNIVERSAL CONCEPTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Our first task is a difficult one. Since my purpose is to examine the way human sexuality integrates into societies around the world, I must settle upon a definition that is suitable for that goal. I require a definition that is universally applicable. It cannot be an arbitrary definition, chosen for its utility or convenience. Rather, since my definition must have universal applicability, it will be possible to test it empirically. This is so because if we find one culture lacking in what this definition claims is the unique and essential quality of human sexuality, then at least the universal aspect of the definition must be rejected, for in such a case what I define as sexuality will not have been present in every society.
I want to develop a definition that eliminates the incidental aspects and focuses upon what appears to be the essential aspects of human sexuality. To illustrate, in some groups the norms stipulate that affection should always be part of a sexual relationship. But since we seek a universally applicable definition and we know that for many groups and in many societies affection is not a required aspect, then we must discard affection as part of the essence of sexuality. After our discussion of personal value judgments in the last chapter, it should be clear that we are not talking of what sexuality universally should be like (the moral essence) but what sexuality universally actually is like (the empirical essence).
We are searching for a societal-level definition, and thus we need to seek the essential nature of sexuality in the shared conceptions that societies put forth. We are not interested in what one individual may conceive of as the essence of sexuality. The essence we are searching for consists of the qualities that when present all societies would label as sexual. In short, we are looking for that without which the sexual would not exist. That is what I mean by the essence of sexuality. Affection does not fit that requirement. The question remains - what does?
In 1983 I examined the index in 20 colleges textbooks in human sexuality to search for a definition. I found that there was no index reference to a definition of human sexuality in 15 of the 20 textbooks. I list here the definitions in the remaining 5 textbooks: 1

Sexuality means a dimension of personality instead of referring to a person's capacity for erotic response. (Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny, 1982: p. 2)

Sex means all the physical, emotional and social implications of being male and female. (Diamond and Karlin, 1980: p. 3)

[Sexuality] refers to the awareness of a reaction to the biological characterizations of male and female. In essence, sexuality is our reactions to sex. (Luria andRose, 1979: p. 6)

The term sex will be used in this book to refer specifically to sexual anatomy and sexual behavior. (Hyde, 1979: p. 3)

There is no single unidimensional definition of sexuality. (Sandler, Meyerson, and Kinder, 1980: p. 216)

I will add here part of the definition of sexuality which the Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) put forth after an international conference in 1980 that sought to develop an internationally acceptable definition of sexuality: 2

The Siecus concept of sexuality refers to the totality of being a person. It includes all of those aspects of the human being that relate specifically to being boy or girl, woman or man, and is an entity subject to life-long dynamic change. (SIECUS Report, January 1980: pp. 1-2)

These definitions make it obvious that much of the confusion in our discussions of sexuality can be traced to the fact that we use vague and unclear concepts when we speak of sexuality, and thus very often we really do not know precisely what we are discussing. This lack of conceptual clarity is apparent in the preceding list of attempts at defining human sexuality.
Let me detail the evidence of some conceptual confusion. The first definition cited hardly gives much insight by asserting that sexuality is a dimension of personality. Temperament, intelligence, empathy, and many other characteristics may also be conceived of as "a dimension of personality." So we are not brought very close to the special and unique characteristics of sexuality by such a definition. The same is even more apparent with the second definition, which involves "all the physical, emotional and social implications of being male and female." That would involve all aspects of gender roles such as the greater likelihood of one gender holding top occupational positions, or being a minister, or majoring in engineering. On the physical level it would involve the ability to become pregnant, the relative life expectancy, or the amount of body hair. Reflection makes it clear that this definition does not bring into sharp focus the unique or distinctive characteristics of human sexuality.
The other definitions suffer from the same overinclusiveness and vagueness of the first few. In fact, the third and fourth definitions actually use the term they are trying to define in the definition. That makes the definition circular and of little value, for it hardly illuminates to say that sexuality is sexuality. The SIECUS definition is perhaps the broadest and includes "the totality of being a person," which is about as far from specificity as one can move. Such definitions may be good politics because their vagueness permits each person to assume that his or her personal meaning is included. However, such definitions contribute little to a clear comprehension of sexuality.
Part of the reason for this vagueness and confusion can be found in our everyday use of the term sex. We have three distinct meanings that one word can express. To illustrate consider the following three sentences:

1. Her sex is female.
2. Her sex role is that of a woman.
3. She had sex with her partner.

In the first sentence the word sex is used to mean genetic sex, that is, chromosomal sex or whether one is an XX or an XY. The reference here, then, is to a biological fact. In the second sentence the word sex is intended to mean gender role or the set of rights and duties a culture assigns to someone classified as a man or a woman. In the third sentence reference is made to an act such as heterosexual or homosexual intercourse.
We must have some agreement regarding separate and distinctive terms for these three potential meanings of the word sex, or we will not be able to clearly write or talk about sexuality. I suggest that we use the term sex to refer to genetic sex or what is called the chromosomal makeup of the individual (XX or XY). Further, that we use the term gender role to refer to the set of rights and duties that societies usually apply to those segments they call women and men. Some people prefer to use the term sex role over gender role, but since sex role uses the word sex in a second way, for clarity's sake it is preferable here to use the term gender role. 3
Finally, we are left with the remaining use of the term sex - something to do with activities like heterosexual or homosexual intercourse. For this meaning I suggest that we use the term sexuality instead of the short form (sex) in order to avoid any confusion with genetic sex. 4 Of course, we will not change the everyday usage of people, but we can change our scientific concepts to gain greater clarity than everyday usage affords. Such recon-ceptualization is an essential part of the scientist's attempt to use concepts in ways that are clear and precise as to meaning.5
But we are still left with the need for a clear definition of sexuality that stresses the distinctive nature of that which we call sexual. We cannot exclusively base our definition on behavior, like genital contact, for at times genital contact is not what we would conceptualize as sexual and the sexual can occur without genital contact. We may respond sexually just to the sight of an attractive person. Further, a visit to a gynecologist may well involve contact with genitalia, but our cultural definition would stress that such touching is nonsexual. In fact, if the gynecological exam led to sexual excitation, our norms would say that was inappropriate and subject to criticism. So, as in all sociological concepts, it is the common meaning of the act that must be tended to and not simply the physical behavior. The behavior is surely not irrelevant, but it is insufficient by itself to define what is sexual.
Ask yourself this queston: What is present in one's thoughts and feelings when there is genital contact with a lover that is not there in a medical exam of one's genitalia? I would submit that the missing element is erotic response or the feeling of being excited or "turned on." To be fully sexual in a societal sense, the action not only must involve what the culture considers the proper forms of sexual behavior but it must occur in a context that is supposed to produce an erotic response, that is, a feeling of excitation that makes one want to continue the activity.6
The gynecological exam lacks the erotic response just as would a kiss to our parents. The point here is that a society makes explicit which types of interaction are supposed to lead to erotic responses and which are not. The gynecological exam is not one of our "interaction models" or "cultural scripts" for producing a sexual response; whereas, dancing close with a lover is one of our cultural scripts for producing a sexual response. It is the excitement that accompanies a cultural script aimed at erotic response that we then label to ourselves as erotic.7
I use the term cultural script to mean a shared, group definition of the type of situation, type of people, and type of behavior appropriate in a particular social context. There are cultural scripts aimed at producing an erotic response in the participants, and I shall call these sexual scripts. Used this way the broad concept of cultural script is quite close in meaning to an "interaction model" or a social role, but since the term script is more informal and has been popularized by sociologists like Gagnon and Simon, I will also use it here. The sexual scripts derive from the shared, consensual beliefs people have about what is good and bad sexuality in their society. These sexual scripts act as guides regarding what that society believes is the proper circumstances for experiencing an erotic response. When we are dealing with a complex society such as our own, the sexual scripts will vary somewhat by ethnic groups, social classes, and age groups. But there will be much similarity, and within each social group there will typically be a dominant script shared by the majority of people in that group.
One other element besides culturally shared scripts and erotic arousal is a second essential part of what all societies call sexuality. That other element is genital response. It is true that some minor erotic arousals may not lead to any obvious genital response. We may respond erotically to a smile or a touch of the hand of another person, and yet it may be so mild that it would be difficult to measure any genital response like penile erection or vaginal lubrication. Yet I am assuming that those mild erotic acts in our society are in the direction of producing a genital response; that is, if they were continued, they would move toward acts like hugging and kissing, which would be much more likely to produce a genital response. Further, if the hugging and kissing were to continue, they would produce even higher likelihood of genital responses. Our culture teaches us these scripts and the expected genital outcomes, and if for some reason the genital responses do not occur, we usually ask ourselves what is wrong.
Clearly, then, I am not talking only of acts that involve touching the genitalia. Of course, particular acts of genital touching when part of our society's sexual scripts are one way to promote genital response. But I am also speaking of less direct actions that are on the path toward genital response and that produce genital responses without actual contact with the genitalia. As noted, visual displays and kissing and fondling can, when in accord with our sexual scripts, produce pronounced genital reactions.
In addition to learning the sequence of acts that our society asserts should produce genital responses, we also have been taught norms (standards for behavior) informing us when and with whom such acts should occur. This entire "package" is what I mean by a sexual script.
Although our norms regarding sexuality promote specific types of sexual responses, they may at times interfere with our genital responses by making us feel that the situation is not one that permits a desired sexual activity. Our group norms may teach us that oral sexuality is an acceptable erotically arousing act but one that we should not engage in on the first date. Then even though we desire to speed up the sexual script and engage in oral sexuality with a new partner, we may hold back. Such normative controls implicitly assert the power of certain sexual acts to evoke genital responses when performed in a particular setting. Nevertheless, such norms also explicitly assert that specific scripts must be followed if we are to achieve our sexual pleasures in socially sanctioned fashions. In this sense the same norms that instruct us about what is erotic also seek to control our performance of those erotic actions when we are not acting in accord with the shared sexual script.

Now I would like to offer my definition of the universal, shared meaning of human sexuality. Human sexuality in all societies consists of those scripts shared by a group that are supposed to lead to erotic arousal and in turn to produce genital response.

The definition is illustrated in Diagram 2.1

 Cultural Scripts     ----->     Erotic Arousal     ----->     Genital Response

DIAGRAM 2.1 Definition of Sexuality.

 I assume that there is a feedback relationship between erotic arousal and genital response. By this I mean that erotic arousal and genital response mutually reinforce each other. The stronger either one of them is, the more likely the other will be strengthened. They are separable, though, for erotic arousal is the state of feeling turned on and genital response is a physiological response such as penile erection or vaginal lubrication. Certainly in the case of a paraplegic the erotic arousal may be in various degrees disconnected from any genital response. Also, a genital response may occur from nonerotic sources. There are research reports of strong emotions such as fear producing erection or lubrication. But in a social system one would expect that most of the time it would be erotic arousal that would lead to genital response. In addition, my assumption is that the erotic arousal occurs in most instances because of the congruence of the behavior with the sexual scripts present in that group. Thus, what arouses us is not a given, biologically fixed set of stimuli but rather a set of stimuli that a particular group decrees to be erotic.
If one is not socially trained regarding which cultural scripts are supposed to be sexually arousing, one can experience considerable difficulty in sexual interactions. One person may, for example, be turned on by his or her script, which might seem strange to the other person. When Westerners introduced our type of lip kissing to Polynesia, it was not immediately welcomed. At first it was thought to be a rather unpleasant way to exchange saliva. Polynesians had kissed by touching their noses to the side of the other person's face and smelling their skin; that is called an "Oceanic" kiss. An American doing the Polynesian "Oceanic" kiss in this country might well be thought of as unusual. So, learning the culture's sexual scripts makes compatible sexual interactions more easily achievable.
It also happens, in complex societies, that some people, compared to others, are raised in groups that are relatively very sexually restrictive. In such cases these young people may well not respond to what are considered erotic interactions by people raised in more sexually permissive groups. In this sense, if young people are taught that premarital sexual intercourse is unacceptable and they are dating others who believe that premarital sexual intercourse is a desirable part of a love relationship, then conflict will ensue because of these incongruent conceptions of sexual scripts.
In other instances low-permissive people who do become erotically aroused in situations that are taboo to them may fail to label their erotic arousal as sexual because they find that arousal unacceptable. In this connection we know from research by Gunter Schmidt on genital reactions to erotic slides that similar percentages of females and males do exhibit genital responses.8 Despite the genital responses, in their verbal reports females were more likely to assert that they found the films disgusting and unpleasant. The sexual scripts presented in the erotic slides did not fit with these females' sense of proper sexual stimuli, and thus they likely allowed their feelings of disgust to overwhelm any awareness of erotic feelings. They could not legitimate their feelings by calling them sexual.
In an analogous vein, those who are raised in high-permissive groups that label a great many interaction models as erotically arousing may well contain people who "fake" their response. Some people may not be erotically aroused but may feel pressure from their group's norms to act aroused. One way to handle that situation is to pretend to be aroused so as not to be viewed as unable to perform. Thus, both blocking of erotic feelings and pretending to have erotic feelings may be occasional consequences of being socially trained into specific sexual scripts. In most instances, I assume, there is reasonable congruency between one's erotic arousal and the accepted script; but that is surely not always the case.
Each society promotes compatibility among individuals in sexual experience to the degree that they train people to react in compatible ways to specific sexual scripts. In this sense having shared scripts is important. Nevertheless, it is not just to avoid conflict that agreed-upon scripts are required but because sexuality is learned predominantly by interacting with other people. Without reasonably compatible sexual scripts in a society, there would be a block to initial social interaction and future learning of the basic aspects of sexual interaction might not take place. Thus, even though a wide variety of different social groups exist in America, we can still arrive at an overall description of our sexual customs. We can fairly state, for example, that most American young people support the right of the unmarried to have premarital intercourse.9 This does not contradict the fact that there are sizable minorities who would strongly reject such a position. It surely is a legitimate sociological investigation to study these diverse groups and their different shared sexual customs as much as it is to study the overall consensus on sexual customs.
I should note here that we are focusing on the major heterosexual patterns in human societies, but the reader should be aware that a sociological approach must also be able to explain homosexuality. Whether homosexuality can be attributed to a failure of the existing heterosexual scripts or to other factors is a much-debated question. Regardless of what one decides on that question, there surely are informal, covert sexual scripts that exist to direct sexual interactions for homosexuals. The key difference is that sexual scripts promoting heterosexuality are given priority, and therefore one typically does not come in contact with homosexual scripts until after joining the homosexual community in some fashion. The details of gay and lesbian sexual interaction models are not widely known. Thus, the question remains as to how the initial movement toward homosexuality occurs in societies like ours that do not promote homosexual scripts. We shall deal with this and other related questions at several places in this book and at length in Chapter 6.
The work of Harry Harlow with rhesus monkeys supports the conclusion that we learn our sexuality by interacting with other individuals 10 Harlow found that infant monkeys who were raised in isolation from the playful interaction of peers and the nurturance of their mothers were unable to perform sexually when they matured. The monkeys seemed to require experience in grooming and touching each other in order to learn the interaction skills and motives needed for sexual intercourse.
In our own society we complicate sexual interaction by teaching men and women different beliefs about what are the preferable sexual interaction models. We train females to place great importance on the presence of stable affection, and we train males to place great importance on physical pleasure. In this sense we eroticize the romantic component for females and we eroticize the pleasure component for males. It is no wonder, then, that such differently socialized genders have difficulties living up to the expectations of each other's sexual scripts. Surely this may interfere with the achievement of sexual satisfaction. Later in the book we will explore the kinship, power, and ideological elements that support such conflicting gender-role training, but it is instructive here to point to the different sexual scripts passed down to each gender in most Western countries.
Some sexual scripts stress that only one partner will obtain erotic arousal and genital response from the encounter. We can see this, for example, in prostitution. In most cases, the prostitute does not become erotically aroused by her sexual activity - but the customer is expected to be aroused. Some readers may wonder if prostitution, since it is illegal in all states but one (Nevada), is part of our culture, that is, part of our shared ways of thinking, feeling, and believing that are the basis for the norms in our society. In a formal, overt view of our norms, prostitution would not be an institution with social guidelines about how to behave. However, certainly there are informal, covert norms that support prostitution and that set up interaction models for both the prostitute and the customer. In this informal and covert sense the sexual scripts related to heterosexual prostitution are part of our cultural heritage and are known and shared by large numbers of people.
On the other hand, there are sexual acts that do not fit even informal cultural patterns. In most but not all cases, rape would be an action much like murder and would not be directly supported by cultural norms, formal or informal. (I deal here only with heterosexual rape of females.) Nevertheless, one might contend that the conflict built into our gender roles, our male-dominant traditions, our acceptance of violence, and the view that sexuality is degrading may all indirectly pressure toward rape. There is some truth in that perspective, but these factors are unintentional supports of rape. We do have some direct normative support in views that assert if a female acts in particular ways, then she "deserves to be raped." But I do believe that the support for such views is far less than the support for other covertly approved acts such as visiting prostitutes or having an extramarital relationship.
Now, there are instances when Western culture has normatively supported rape as proper. Wartime is one such instance.11 It is not uncommon during wartime for soldiers to believe they have the right to rape enemy women. But here I am not referring to such structured and "institutionalized" rape but rather to individual rape in a peacetime Western society.
To be sure - as I shall discuss in Chapter 7 - rape is predominantly an act that expresses anger and power motives. However, it is not unusual for sexual acts to express motives other than physical pleasure. In many primate sexual acts it is difficult to discern the difference between an attempt to dominate and a sexual act. One sign of deference of a male primate to a more powerful male is to assume the female lordotic position (bent over with the rear up in the air) in front of the more powerful male. This seems to imply that the female sexual position has a submissive meaning, and thus primate sexuality may well have at least a partial power component.
All this aside, research indicates that there is also in most rapes an element of erotic arousal on the part of the rapist. To the rapist the sexual act symbolizes both his arousal and the degradation of the female.12 It is this view of sexuality as a way to degrade a woman that facilitates the combination of eroticism with anger and power.
According to our definition of sexuality, rape in American society would be predominantly an individual act even though it may, as noted, unintentionally result from shared views concerning sexuality and gender. But a common sexual act like rape becomes a challenge to any sociological explanation of sexuality. If sexuality is heavily determined by cultural scripts, then why do we have such a large number of so-called individual rapes in our country? For now it will have to suffice to say that a culture may produce forces that promote outcomes that are not desired .13
There are other sexual acts that are only partially in line with sexual scripts. One common source of such acts is rapid social change. An act that was once not acceptable can become acceptable, and an act that was once thought of as not part of our sexual customs can become sexual. The increase in anal intercourse reported among married couples in the last 20 years, for example, may be one such change. Also, the increasing popularity over the past 20 years of oral sexuality would be another example. 14
So, any sociological explanation of sexuality requires that we regularly monitor the shared ways of thinking, feeling, and believing that prevail in a society. In this fashion we become aware when changes occur due to new conceptions of sexuality becoming more acceptable. Some degree of change is inevitable, for the shared sexual scripts cannot possibly spell out every action, thought, and feeling that should occur. In this sense the individual is constantly "editing" the sexual scripts of his or her society. That process individualizes the script to better fit the person, and it also opens up the possibility of social change when a number of people, due to common social pressures, alter their scripts in the same fashion. The mechanism of the rapid changes in premarital sexuality in the 1965-1975 decade in America consisted of just such common individual script alteration in the face of common societal pressures. 15
But other individual acts that lead to erotic arousal may be largely individual "discoveries" that do not become part of any social change. One may find that riding a horse, for example, affords erotic arousal. Surely this would be personal erotic arousal, for it would not be based upon a shared sexual script concerning this possible source of arousal and it is not a reaction to any common societal pressure. There are many such acts, and often individuals feel guilty about them because they haven't been given group support for these types of individualized sexual behaviors.
My point here is that these acts are "outside" the social system. They are not fully sexual in the social sense of being based upon shared scripts, nor are they the result of common societal pressures such as we discussed in the case of rape. As noted, a private discovery may grow into a shared custom, but until it does, it is outside the sociological explanatory schema. It may be valuable for sociologists to study such individual behavior in order to understand the potential sources of new sexual customs, but it would be a psychologist or perhaps a biologist who might be intrinsically interested in explaining many such types of private sexual acts. 16
Even if not fully social, such private sexual acts are certainly sexual in a psychological sense in that they entail erotic arousal and genital response even if the source of the arousal does not come from a shared cultural script. If, as I contend, interaction models are the primary cause of erotic and genital reactions in the world, then such individualized sexual acts should be the source of only a minority of the total number of erotic and genital reactions that occur in any society. This should be even more the case for the adult, more socialized population in a society. The explanatory power of a sociological explanation can be tested by ascertaining how much of the genital response in a society is due to sources outside the shared sexual scripts.
In looking at other societies we must be careful that we do not impose our sexual scripts on them and label their different sexual behaviors as idiosyncratic and not shared just because they violate our sexual scripts. Indeed, when we examine cultures around the world, it is obvious that the sexual scripts of different cultures vary greatly. The reader may think, for example, that there is a "natural" progression of sexual acts from kissing to petting and finally to coitus that would be found in all societies. This is not so, for in other societies, as I have pointed out earlier, one would not even kiss as we do. Further, in some societies couples get down to the business of copulating with hardly any preliminary sexual activities and may fondle each other mostly after, and not before coitus. This is particularly true for adolescent sexuality. For example, Robert Suggs reports on the Marquesan sexual customs as follows: 17

The typical sex act in adolescence and early adulthood begins with practically no foreplay.... The sex act seldom takes more than five minutes, most often two to three minutes. (Suggs, 1966: pp, 71-73)

 Donald Marshall describes coitus on Mangaia in the South Pacific:

There is seldom any kissing or affectionate foreplay and demonstration prior to coitus.... Sexual intimacy is not achieved by first demonstrating personal affection; the reverse is true. (Marshall and Suggs, 1971: p. 118)

Finally, let me quote from Verrier Elwin's description of a youth commune in central India:

This belief in sex as something good and normal gives the Muria a light touch ... the penis and the vagina are in a "joking relationship" to each other .... Sex is great fun; it is the best of the ghotul [youth commune] games; it is the dance of the genitals. (Elwin, 1947: p. 419)

This cross-cultural perspective helps to afford us an awareness that in each society we are indeed acting on specific cultural scripts that are a very narrow selection of all possible models. The specific reasons why one society selects a particular set of sexual scripts different from another is a major concern of this book and will be examined in depth in the chapters that follow.
My definition of the universal essence of human sexuality can easily be scientifically tested. One can search for a society that does not have shared sexual scripts to serve as models for erotic and genital responses. If a society were found without such scripts, then erotic arousal and genital response would be viewed as resulting from nonsocietal causes. Further, if a society is found in which there are sexual scripts but most of the erotic arousal and genital response can be explained biologically, then my definition is in error. Many people do seem to believe that sexuality is "natural" or biological and that we do not need to be trained how to behave sexually. If this is true, my conception of sexuality would not explain very much of the sexual behavior that occurs. But note that if one accepts this natural, biological view of sexuality, then societies should not differ very much in their sexual patterns, for they all contain "natural" individuals. The evidence from Harry Harlow's work with monkeys questions such a natural view, for it documents that monkeys brought up in isolation for the first six months of their life are unable to perform sexually. 18
Another explanation that contradicts mine is one that views sexuality as completely individualized and due to the distinct learning experiences of different people. If this perspective were valid, then an immense number of patterns of sexual interaction would characterize each society. Sexual activity would depend on the varied and unique experiences of each person. If this were so, my views about sexuality would surely be shown to be in error.
In contrast to the alternative views just presented, my perspective asserts that sexual customs are established by the group or society to which we belong and that they vary by the social nature of that group. Surely, biological factors are essential as a general basis but, I presume that biological factors are relatively equally distributed across cultures. It follows, then, that such biological similarities cannot account for the vast differences in sexual lifestyles that prevail in different social settings.
I am saying that rather than looking to biology or individual experience, we must search for the sources of our sexual lifestyles by looking at our basic social system. Somewhere in that social system lies the answers to the reason for the particular sexual scripts that exist in that group. Where direct sexual scripts do not explain sexual patterns, as in rape, I shall argue that indirect societal forces contain the explanation more fully than any biological trait. We shall systematically pursue this search for societal explanations at length in the chapters that follow, but first we must pursue our conception of sexuality a bit further.

REPRODUCTION: JUST HOW RELEVANT IS IT?

Now that we have formulated a universal conception of human sexuality, we must examine what it is about the social nature of human sexuality that ensures that all societies will have sexual scripts. Why would societies not just leave sexual interaction to chance and individual learning? This question concerns the assumptions underlying my conception of sexuality, which asserts that all societies will have sexual scripts. As the reader will soon see, some of the answers are not so obvious.
My cross-cultural examination of human sexuality leads me to conclude that the most distinctive social characteristic of sexuality is the high importance in which it is held in virtually all societies. This is so regardless of the degree of sexual permissiveness in a society. There are those societies like the Inis Baeg near Ireland or the East Bay in Melanesia that would argue that we Americans overvalue heterosexuality and stress it too much.19 Yet even those cultures assert the importance of sexuality by their stress on the need to control it.
There are other cultures that are very accepting of sexuality. Some were mentioned earlier, but there are additional ones that have been carefully studied, such as the Lepcha of Sikkim in the Himalayan Mountains, the Baiga in Central India, or the Tiwi off the coast of North Australia. People in these cultures may place less importance on any one act of intercourse but would stress the pleasure value of sexuality in general .20 Accordingly, these societies would place great importance on sexuality as a high-priority life activity even though any one sexual act may be seen as a simple pleasure.
If we agree that no society takes a stance of indifference to human sexuality and that all societies accept this high evaluation of the importance of human sexuality, then we can expect that all societies will strive to organize this important element of our life into sexual scripts. Thus, these scripts will be universally present and they will be designed to integrate with other important aspects of a society. These other aspects we will deal with in the next chapters, but first we need to answer the question of why sexuality is everywhere thought of as important.
Many people believe that the importance of sexuality in all societies is based predominantly upon its relationship to pregnancy and childbirth. Of course, this empirical connection is in most societies today one basis for viewing sexuality as important. However, the meaning of the connection of sexuality to reproduction is not that of a direct causal relationship. Reproduction has meaning predominantly in connection to the mediating variables of kinship and marriage. By this I mean that it is not the biological connection of sexuality to pregnancy that is most important in many non-Western societies. In such societies a large number of kin, other than the biological parents, participate in actions that promote the birth of a child and also participate in future actions involving care for the offspring. It is the set of meanings placed upon sexuality by such kin that is important, and the reproductive outcome is but one of those meanings. Lot me elaborate on this thought.
In cultures like those in Polynesia the social connection of parents, relatives, and siblings to the newborn is what is crucial and not the biological fact of who supplied the sperm and egg for that child.21 Adoption is widespread, and a shared form of upbringing by siblings and other adults is common. Robert Levy estimates that 25% of the Tahitian children were not living with either biological parent because of this common system of adoption and group upbringing.22 This is about ten times as high a proportion as in the United States.
The point here is that although reproduction is important in all societies, it is important not just to the biological parents but to all the kin who may be involved in actions related to that reproduction. This is so because the "production" of children in many societies is viewed as a group activity, not as a straightforward biological activity. Reproduction is not simply conceived of as a consequence of a sexual act. Rather, reproduction is seen as a consequence of agreements made by various families regarding marriage and understandings that exist among many kin about caring for that child. The child is in that sense produced by the actions of all these kin and is born into a network of kinspeople. This approach is quite different from our own. We emphasize the individual bride and groom who make their own marriage decision and whose plans determine the birth of "their" child. In this fashion, we in the West do tie reproduction more closely to the actions of just the married couple.
This ability to at least partially separate sexuality from reproduction is further illuminated by those cultures in which the biological connections are not fully known, as among the Trobrianders in Melanesia.23 There and in many other cultures it is believed that sexual acts alone will not produce pregnancy. Pregnancy is produced by a spirit entering an opening in the body of the woman, perhaps while she is bathing. It is as a consequence of being married that pregnancy and childbirth occur and not simply because of the sexual relations of a particular couple.
Among the natives in and around Northern Australia, for example, it is the husband who offers the spiritual element needed for the woman to become pregnant. Among the Tiwi the husband must first dream of the child before it can be born. In Western Arnhem Land on Goulbourn Island, the husband must complete the pregnancy by bringing the spirit of the child to the wife.24 Sexuality alone is not seen as producing pregnancy. Such views surely weaken the argument that sexuality gains its importance by its tie to reproduction, for once again that tie in this and many other societies is seen as conditional, indirect, and partial.
To elaborate upon my thinking here, let me comment briefly about some popular beliefs that illustrate the nonscientific nature of the reasoning in many societies concerning sexuality and pregnancy. This is conspicuous in beliefs about the consequences of sexual intercourse. Consider, for example, the belief in some nonliterate societies that a woman is not likely to become pregnant if she has intercourse with many different men. Conversely, it is believed that the focusing of sexual relations upon one male produces pregnancy. Elwin comments on the trends among Muria youth in India toward having many sexual partners and states that this custom was encouraged by the belief that having a variety of partners restricts pregnancy. In connection with another central India society, the Baiga, he quotes an informant on this same point :25

When a girl is going always to everyone, the mouth of her bag or womb never shuts, and so the man's seed runs in and out. That is why a loose girl never has a child. (Elwin, 1939: p. 220)

Many Polynesians, such as the Mangaians near Cook Island, also believe that having a variety of partners will prevent pregnancy. Also the Berndts' report that the Australian aborigines they studied believed that focusing intercourse on one man was what produced pregnancy. They also note that the aborigines believed that, in addition, a spiritual element is involved in producing pregnancy: 26

To impregnate a woman five to six ejaculations on successive days are required. During that period the woman must not have coitus with any man but her own husband, nor herself eject the semen by bodily exertion, abdominal pressure, etc. This accumulated substance serves as a basis for the foetus, which is termed an "egg". . . . At the stoppage of the menstrual flow, the blood which would normally be ejected goes now to help in the formation of the "egg". . . . About this time the father "brings the spirit child" to his camp; this spirit child resides in the father from the time of its finding. He does not give the "spirit child" directly to his wife, but awaits his opportunity. He first finds out if his wife has been constant in her affection for him and whether her menstrual flow has stopped. (Berndt and Berndt, 1951: p. 81)

My explanation for such beliefs would be that they constitute logical, though imperfect, reasoning based upon the fact that these people see a young woman marry and focus her sexuality on her husband and then they see her become pregnant. In these societies, prior to marriage women had many partners and did not usually become pregnant. Thus, pregnancy to them seems to result from the focus on one man - the husband. What they overlook is that prior to marriage, females may well have been too young to become pregnant easily, for it is not uncommon to start coitus by age ten and to marry young.
Notice also that the belief about the pregnancy potential of focused sexuality acts as a control on the wife's extramarital relationships, for if she wants to bear a child she must focus her sexuality on her husband. In the quote on the Australian aborigines in Arnhem Land, it is apparent that the husband will not add the "spirit child" element needed for pregnancy unless his wife has been attentive to him. In sum, these beliefs further document the lack of any belief in a simple connection of intercourse to pregnancy and show how embroidered that causal connection is with other beliefs and qualifications in the minds of these peoples.
On this same point, if the tie to reproduction is the reason for sexuality being considered important, then a different set of sexual norms might be expected to apply to menopausal women. Their sexuality should not be viewed as necessitating the same cultural restrictions as apply to fertile individuals. Furthermore, if reproduction were the key reason for the importance of sexuality, then prepubertal children would be allowed widespread sexual freedom, for they cannot become pregnant. In Western societies it is surely well known that 10-year-olds cannot become pregnant, and yet the opposition to sexual relations among 10-year-olds is surely stronger than it would be for 20-year-olds, who could become pregnant. It appears that other meanings of sexuality besides the reproductive are dominant in our sexual norms.
In one sense we in the West, like many nonindustrial cultures, have separated reproduction from sexuality. We have done this by using contraception and abortion to modify the causal connection of reproduction to sexuality just as other societies do this by involving the wider kin network in the production and care of infants or by bringing in magical and spiritual elements in their explanations of reproduction. It is relevant to note that as we in the West have separated sexuality from reproduction, the importance our culture has placed on sexuality has not decreased. If anything, some people have said we have today placed a higher value on the importance of achieving a satisfying sexual life for both genders than ever before. Clearly, then, if we separate reproduction from sexuality, and the value of sexuality increases, then something other than reproduction must be supporting the view that sexuality is important.

This illustration and our previous discussion concerning non-Western societies' ways of separating sexuality from reproduction point out that reproduction is not the everpresent reason for people judging sexuality to be important. Reproduction can be controlled, and it can be believed to be inoperative. What is much more essential to the meaning of sexuality are the physical and psychological aspects of sexuality. Accordingly, I shall argue in the next section that they and not reproduction are the key to the universal importance of sexuality.
Permit me one final and speculative thought on this question of the role of reproduction in the importance given to sexuality. As I conceptualize the lifestyle of our earliest ancestors I would reverse the common way of thinking and picture sexuality as leading to the importance placed on reproduction rather than reproduction leading to the importance placed on sexuality. Allow me to briefly speculate on our ancestors of hundreds of thousands of years ago and I will try to explain my thinking here.
There is no reason to expect our earliest ancestors to know the connection of sexuality to reproduction. Many of our high school students today do not know it! I believe that one of the earliest social bonds would have been the sexual linkage to another human being. The physical and psychological pleasures of sexuality would in my judgment have served as an initial bonding element for the couple involved. We see this in other primate species today. Later as offspring were born, rudimentary ties to these children would over time tend to further unite the members of these primitive families. Such ties to descendants would be the stimulus to the development of kinship systems, but it would take considerable time for such kinship systems to formalize and conceptualize the role of sexuality in the production of future kin members.
These early beliefs relating sexuality to reproduction would surely not match those described in a modern biology course. As I have noted, even today in many societies these ties are partial and interwoven with many other societal elements. At some point, though, reproduction would become one additional basis for the importance placed upon sexuality. In sum, then, in my speculative vision of the past, sexuality creates the importance of reproduction because of the bonding power of sexuality, which in turn promotes the growth of kinship notions. Only after the development of rudimentary kinship relationship would the concept of reproduction contribute somewhat to the importance of sexuality.
Reproduction for its own sake is not important in almost any society - it is only reproduction that integrates into an existing kinship system that is conceived of as important. For that to occur, we must first have a kinship system in place. Sexual bonding promotes the development of kinship systems. It is for these reasons that I would play down the role of reproduction in the importance placed upon sexuality today and I further believe that historically the causal relationship was the reverse of the common view today.

THE TWO KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUALITY

The preceding discussion suggests that sexuality would be universally viewed as important even if storks brought babies. If we accept this position, then what is the basis of the universal feeling that sexuality is important? I think at the most fundamental level the importance of sexuality is based upon the two most common characteristics that everywhere accompany sexual behavior. Relevant to our discussion of the role of reproduction is the fact that these two characteristics are much more likely to accompany sexuality than is pregnancy. These characteristics are physical pleasure and self-disclosure. Neither of these characteristics is guaranteed to accompany every sexual act, nor will the presence of either always be maximal. They are nonetheless the most common characteristics of human sexuality. I am proposing that they are the reason that sexuality is viewed as important in all human societies.
Physical pleasure as an accompaniment of human sexual activity is only in part related to human physiology. Surely the abundant nerve endings in the genital area aid in any societal attempt to eroticize the genitalia. But more than nerve endings are needed to create an erotic zone. We need only look at the last 20 years to become aware of the vast increase in oral and anal sexuality in America. Nerve endings always existed in the oral and anal body parts, but our culture in the past had not encouraged their use as an erotic zone. It is the cultural labeling of a body part as an erotic zone that greatly enhances the liklihood of that body part being utilized in sexual encounters.
Research on genital responses to erotic stimuli show the power of cultural training. The Kinsey report on female responses to erotica indicated vast male and female differences in erotic responses to such stimuli as nude bodies and viewing genitalia .27 However, in terms of erotic response to romantic movies, females responded more than males, and both genders were about equal on responses to literary materials. Our sexual scripts for females stress romance and for males stress genital pleasure, and thus such gender differences in response to erotica are not surprising. As our culture has become more equalitarian, these differences have accordingly been muted .28
Breasts in some cultures are eroticized and in others they are not. Some cultures stress slimness; some value the rotund body. However, there are a few similarities among cultures in erotic responses; for example, females with wide hips and males with wide shoulders are admired sexually in most all cultures.29 This reflects the fundamental body silhouette difference between genetic males and females, and thus its centrality in heterosexuality would be expected.
I would speculate that the same societal standards of sexual attraction apply in homosexuality as in heterosexuality. A lesbian would find the hips and breasts of her partner sexually attractive just as a man would in that society. I assume this because homosexuals are socialized into the same standards of sexual attraction as are heterosexuals. The difference is simply that they are attracted to the appeals of the same gender rather than the opposite gender.
The penis and clitoris are also accepted as eroticized in most all cultures. There are exceptions, though. Some cultures attempt to restrict female sexuality in an extreme fashion by performing clitoridectomies, that is, removing the clitoris surgically. This is done today in some African countries. 30 In the nineteenth century and part of the twentieth in the Western world clitoridectomies were at times recommended by medical doctors to control what they felt was the "unnatural" sexual interest of some females. 31 The reader should notice that in these instances, the very fact that such surgery is undertaken indicates a belief in the physical pleasure derivable from the clitoris.
In the Sudan and elsewhere infibulation is practiced today. 32 Not only is part of the clitoris and the labia cut off but the remaining labia are then sewn together to almost completely block access to the vagina. Intercourse becomes very difficult and childbirth requires the opening of these stiches. After delivery the area may be resewn. This is the physiological equivalent of the chastity belt of the European Middle Ages. No clearer indication is needed of the desire to control female sexuality. Related to this is the common belief in such cultures that females are sexually insatiable and infibulation is therefore necessary to control their lust. Thus, these practices distinctly show a belief in the high pleasure value of sexuality.
In America, also, we have evidence of the common awareness of the pleasurable aspects of sexuality even during the Victorian era. Historical studies of the Victorian era in the United States by Carl Degler indicate much higher female orgasmic rates and pleasure orientations than was formerly believed .33 Western cultures generally believe that it is the male who is more physically insatiable. Outside the Western World, about 75% of the societies believe that sexual "drives or urges" are equal.34 Regardless of such differences the awareness that physical pleasure is part of human sexuality is universal even though, as we have seen, some cultures use radical methods to control the pursuit of such pleasure.
Note that I refer to physical pleasure and not necessarily orgasm. The occurrence of orgasm is one type of physical pleasure. The pursuit of orgasm is encouraged in some societies, while in some others (ancient India and China) the delay of orgasm was taught. 35 In summary, although the physiology of the body is essential for pleasure to occur, the way in which the body is utilized is variable and dependent upon the particular society's values. But all societies in their customs, either by direct praise or radical attempts to control, pay homage to the physical pleasure potential in sexual relationships.
The second common characteristic of sexuality is much more overlooked by observers than is physical pleasure. I refer to this characteristics as self-disclosure. This may not strike the reader as an obvious characteristic of sexuality. Nevertheless, upon reflection, I believe most of you will agree that self-disclosure is an essential part of human sexuality. We need first to pay attention to the meaning of the word disclosure. It refers to making known to another some previously unknown aspect of oneself. Self-disclosure affords the other person a deeper understanding of what one is like. The more complete the disclosure, the more intimate and private are the things being shown. To disclose, then, means to show the less obvious and apparent aspects of the self and thereby display our inner thoughts and feelings.36
In no culture that I know of do people routinely experience the heights of sexual pleasure in public. To be sure, there are ceremonial occasions where such public sexuality occurs. In Polynesia there used to be a traveling group of entertainers, called the Aroia Society, who would put on public sexual displays. 37 But the vast majority of sexual behavior is private even in the most sexually permissive cultures. In fact, I would suggest that one of the appeals of erotic films is that they show in public what most of us keep private. If sexuality were not private, such films would have much less appeal.
As a way of becoming aware of the private nature of sexuality, the reader may be interested in composing his or her own "orgasm-disclosure ratio." I devised this measure as a way of illustrating the private aspect of sexuality. For one time period in your life estimate the number of people who have seen you have an orgasm and divide that by the total number of people you were socially interacting with at that time. To have a ratio of 1.0 a person would have to have had an orgasm in the presence of both genders and all age groups among their friends, acquaintances, and family members. I doubt if there are any such people. Most people would have a very small ratio score, indicating that orgasm is a private act that they do not easily display even to close friends.
Another indicator of the disclosure aspect of sexuality can be seen in the "altered state" quality of human sexuality. Murray Davis has perhaps best developed this sexual concept. 38 From the subjective point of view, the key indicator of sexual arousal is precisely this altered state quality. One way of seeing that is to realize that sexual excitation produces physiological and psychological effects that reduce one's awareness of what is going on outside of the sexual encounter. A hooker who wishes to lift the wallet of a John knows that when he is most excited, he will be least aware of what is going on. We also subjectively know the difference when we move from what Davis called "everyday reality" to the altered state of "erotic reality" which Davis also calls embodiment.
In Western societies, males are expected to move quickly into the zone of erotic reality and become sexually excited. Males are also often expected to move out of that erotic reality shortly after their orgasm. Females, on the other hand, are viewed as being slower to enter the altered state of erotic reality and also to be slower in leaving it. Some of this difference may be physiologically based. Research by Masters and Johnson indicates that after orgasm the male's physiological signs drop sharply from their levels of arousal, whereas the female's physiological signs drop much slower. It is this difference that is one important basis for the female's greater ability to achieve multiple orgasms, for she remains longer at a level close to orgasm. 39 The work of Goldfoot, Hrdy, and Mitchell on nonhuman primates yields similar male-female differences. 40
Some of this gender difference in humans is due to cultural training that inhibits women from being more assertive sexually at the start of a sexual encounter and encourages men to feel that achieving their orgasm is the primary goal of the sexual encounter. Still, part of this male-female difference does seem to be due to the physiological factors mentioned. Allow me to add here, however, that such biological differences will not be part of sexual disclosure scripts unless the culture of the group encourages that outcome. Reflect on how recent it is in America that we have been aware of the widespread ability of females to achieve multiple orgasms. 41 This is so despite the fact that the ability of females to achieve multiple orgasm is part of female physiology. 42
In all societies sexuality alters our state of mind. This is a common element in sexuality, regardless of what the sexual scripts are like. It is this altered state that promotes self-disclosure. The altered state means that what was important in everyday life may become unimportant in erotic reality. In erotic reality, the focus is upon the erotic, not upon one's workmates, religious duties, intellectual curiosities, or such. The physical pleasures become primary as one moves more into erotic reality. There is, in this sense, a loss of freedom and flexibility once one is in the altered state of erotic reality. In the physical exchange of a sexual encounter we are altered in ways that lead people to disclose their desires quite differently than they would in a nonsexual interaction involving the very same people. Fundamentally, sexual disclosure consists of showing another your enjoyment of physical pleasure. That very act may well encourage other, even more revealing, forms of disclosure. Thus, some disclosure is almost inevitable - how much occurs depends on a variety of factors.
There is also in sexuality a vulnerability produced in part by the altered state and the disclosures of these private aspects of the self. Some people, in our culture females in particular, often feel the need to have tenderness and affection in order to be willing to enter the altered state of sexuality. Fear of pregnancy may be involved, but it does not seem to be the paramount reason because this difference is present even when women are contraceptively protected. Perhaps the greater social power of males makes them feel less vulnerable and encourages them to feel less of a need for an affectionate setting for their sexuality. Whatever the reasons, the movement from everyday to erotic reality is taken with various degrees of ease in different cultures and by different groups in any one culture. The reasons for this will become more apparent in future chapters.
The key point here is, if one does not take this journey into an altered state, then one has probably not been erotically stimulated and sexual satisfaction is not likely. Although we surely vary by how quickly and how deeply we enter this altered state, it seems clear that it is the doorway to sexuality. If one is thinking of his or her job or children or how to pay the bills, the likelihood of sexual satisfaction is small, for one will still be in everyday reality. The importance of this altered state to one's partner is evidenced by the commonness with which people fake orgasms in order to convince their partner that they are in such an altered state. Note that the best way to fake an orgasm is to act as if one is in an altered state. In all forms of sexuality I believe a good lover is probably defined the same way by most people: A good lover is someone who has learned to take pleasure in the partner's pleasure and thereby aids both himself or herself and the partner in achieving an altered state.
Finally, since that altered state implies displaying actions and feelings that are generally kept private, we do indeed have an act of disclosure that is a basic part of the sexual experience. However, it is important to be clear about the distinction between disclosure and affection. One can be sexually disclosing to someone without being affectionate to that person. Analogously, one can be affectionate to a partner without being sexually disclosing. Casual sexual relations are a prime example of sexual disclosure without deep affection.
This distinction of sexual disclosure and affection is an important one to make. Having made it, though, I must qualify by asserting that one reason that the private-disclosing aspect of sexuality is valued is that it is seen as a catalyst for promoting intimacy and nonsexual self-disclosures. The elemental physical and emotional disclosures of sexuality can promote further and deeper psychic disclosures. This is an outcome of the built-in pleasure and disclosure aspects of sexuality. This potential can be encouraged or discouraged by the people involved and by the society in which they live.
In short, when we assert that sexuality usually contains pleasure and disclosure characteristics, it becomes apparent why sexuality is everywhere viewed as important. This plainly follows if you assume as I do that almost all humans value physical pleasure and the psychic release and intimacy potential of self-disclosure. How many parts of our life can easily produce pleasure and disclosure possibilities? In a few areas like friendship and kinship relationships this may occur. There is a nonsexual but yet physical pleasure aspect to friendship and kinship - hugging and kissing are often involved. There is surely a self-disclosure aspect as well, and this is most often stressed as an essential quality of friendship and kinship.
Sexual relationships like friendship may also be characterized by emotional involvement with the other person, but this is not as central a requirement in sexuality. One can have intercourse with a partner and think only of one's own pleasure - as with a prostitute or a casual partner. Further, one can masturbate and need not have any partner. In this sense sexuality is more of a self-oriented pleasure than is friendship.
This is not to say that friendship does not involve self-orientation but to assert that friendship demands, in virtually all instances, that concern for the other person be shown. No one argues for the superiority of friendship that does not involve serious caring. However, some have argued for the superiority of sexuality without affection because there is then no interference with the pleasure involved by any sense of duty felt toward the other person. 43 So, the mixture of self- and other-focused pleasures is different in friendship and sexuality.
I am not pointing out these differences to label sexuality as selfish and of less value than friendship. The meaning of such a difference depends on one's philosophical assumptions. My philosophical assumption is that all actions are self-oriented, but that some are aimed at gratifications that accrue only to oneself while others are aimed at gratifications that accrue, in addition to oneself, to others. We tend to call the latter actions altruistic and the former selfish, but in my view they both are clearly self-oriented. The difference is that the altruistic person has learned to take pleasure from other people's pleasures, not just from his or her private pleasures.
I believe it is important in a scientific work to make explicit the philosophical assumptions that underly one's positions. My assumptions regarding human behavior are a modified version of hedonism as originally put forth by Jeremy Bentham and elaborated upon by other, more recent philosophers. 44 Basically, this position asserts that all humans seek to avoid pain to pursue pleasure. This hedonistic philosophical position is quite relevant to my view on the importance of sexuality: It is this self-orientation of human beings that makes physical pleasure and self-disclosure the universal basis for judging sexuality to be important. If we were other-oriented creatures, why would we value such self-oriented pleasures?
Surely we humans are still very much distinguishable from each other, for it makes a great deal of difference as to the specific sources of our pains and pleasures. One way of seeing this point is to classify yourself and others you know on the degree to which each of you has incorporated the pleasures of other people as part of your own pleasures. There are sharp differences in such a comparison, and generally the more altruistic person is more highly valued in a society. But according to this philosophical position, all of us are in one way or another self-oriented despite our differences regarding how we obtain our pleasures. To be sure, this difference is an important one on most people's value hierarchies. But if we fail to see the similarity in self and other orientations that we all share, we may well exaggerate the differences that exist among us.
Certainly sexuality is not alone among life's valuables in its potential rewards, but equally apparent is its special nature and thus its potential influence over our lives. It is the realization of the importance and power of sexuality that induces some societies that value self-oriented pleasures to promote sexuality and some societies that are more fearful of loss of control and less openly hedonistic to seek to restrict sexuality. Nevertheless, both types of societies assert by their actions the importance of human sexuality and their recognition of the pleasure and disclosure aspects of sexual relationships. At the most elementary level, pleasure and disclosure are the building blocks of social relationships. Whether those relationships be kinship, friendship, or sexual - pleasure and disclosure are involved. So, the importance of sexuality rests upon its partial possession of the key ingredients upon which the social relationships in society are founded.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The stage is now set for a sociological analysis of human sexuality. I have defined sexuality as erotic and genital responses produced by the cultural scripts of a society. Furthermore, I have suggested that such cultural scripts are universal because sexuality is everywhere viewed as important and therefore in need of societal regulation of some sort. The basic reason for this importance is that sexuality typically encompasses the elements of physical pleasure and self-disclosure, at least in some rudimentary form. From a societal perspective, pleasure and disclosure are the crucial elements in forming the key relationships in a society, whether they be sexual or otherwise. The precise way that sexuality is expressed will reflect the social system in question. It is apparent that the possibilities are vast and, as we shall see, they include both heterosexual and homosexual forms.
It is important that the reader is aware that I have developed a sociological definition and not a physiological or psychological definition. I am interested in tying sexuality in with human society and not with the human body nor with the human unconscious. Of course, there are connections to physiology and psychology that we must be aware of, and we have already spoken of some of them. But I intend to focus in this book upon societal linkages and leave to others the task of developing connections to these other areas.
There is one exercise in imagination that I believe will give the reader more of a feeling for the important linkages of society to sexuality and set the stage for the chapters that follow. Try to imagine a world without sexuality. Suppose that children were bred in laboratories by scientific means and humans had no erotic feelings. The genital area was to be used only for elimination. How would that alter our world? I think the answer is - immensely! We would, for example, have no more political scandals concerning homosexual or heterosexual liaisons of politicians. We would have no such thing as sexual jealousy, and people living together would not be concerned that an outside friendship might develop into a sexual relationship. One's physical appearance could not be used as a lure or as a means of materially advancing oneself. In these and many other ways much of our political, economic, and intimate life would be radically altered.
I do not think an increase in gender equality would be a necessary outcome of a world without sexuality. By removing sexuality from marriage, one may remove some of the special ties of females to males, and this may remove one of the factors that restrains the exploitation of one gender by the other. The very tie of men and women with the physical and psychic rewards of sexuality may be a major impediment to more abusive male dominance. Thus, sexuality may well, in part, operate as a force for equality. We all know that sexuality can be used to promote inequality, but its equalitarian possibilities must also be kept in mind. In this same vein it would be worth thinking about the contribution to same-gender welfare that homosexual relationships make. Homosexual ties also promote a sense of shared welfare that may mute conflict.
Once we accept the societal importance of sexuality, the question that is primary in a sociological approach is, what are the specific ways in which sexuality links to other parts of human society? I believe there are three major areas of social life wherein sexuality is closely intertwined in every human society. These three parts of human society determine the ways in which sexuality will be integrated in that society and the particular sexual attitudes and behaviors that will be accepted. In formal terms, these three areas are the kinship system, the power structure, and the ideology of that society .45
It is not the entirety of each of these three areas that is centrally linked to sexuality. Rather, it is a specific aspect of each of these three institutionalized areas that is central. Thus in terms of kinship, I will, in the next chapter, examine marital sexual jealousy. Marriage is, of course, a part of our kinship system and where it joins sexual jealousy is a most revealing point of entry for our purposes. In terms of power, the most intimate linkage is with gender roles. Gender roles will reflect the power differentials of males and females that exist in a society and thereby afford us a direct path potentially connecting sexuality with power. Finally, ideologies put forth the group's conception of what is normal human behavior. Since sexuality is an important part of all societies, ideologies will define normality partially in sexual terms. We will explore how such conceptions of sexual normality shape our notions concerning homosexuality and erotica. Thus, when I say the key linkages of sexuality are to kinship, power, and ideology, what I specifically mean is that sexuality is linked to marital jealousy, gender roles, and notions of normality. These linkages overlap with each other in many places. These overlapping areas, too, will be brought out in the chapters that follow. I stress the broader areas from whence these more specific foci derive because near these central sources may well be additional linkages that others may wish to explore. But now it is time for our exploration to begin!

SELECTED REFERENCES AND COMMENTS

1. The five textbooks that did have a definition of sexuality noted in the index were
Masters, William, Virginia Johnson, and Robert Kolodny, Human Sexuality. Boston: Little, Brown, 1982.
Diamond, Milton, and Arno Karlin, Sexual Decisions. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980.
Luria, Zella, and Mitchel Rose, Psychology of Human Sexuality. New York: John Wiley, 1979.
Hyde, Janet, Understanding Human Sexuality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
Sandler, Jack, Marilyn Meyerson, and Bill N. Kinder, Human Sexuality: Current Perspectives. Tampa, Fla.: Mariner, 1980.
2. SIECUS Report, vol. 8, no, 3, January 1980. Human Sciences Press, New York.
3. To young people today it may seem that the concept of gender has always existed. In reality it is a very new concept that John Money states he introduced in 1955. However, Money's current usage combines gender identity and gender role into one concept, and that is not my usage. For the sake of conceptual clarity, I would separate these concepts. The widespread use of gender role as a definition of the roles culture creates for males and females is really confined to the last 15 or 20 years. For Money's perspective see
Money, John, "The Conceptual Neutering of Genders and the Criminalization of Sex," Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 14, no. 3 (June 1985), pp. 279-290.
4. The term sexual is an adjective that indicates that something possesses the characteristics of sexuality, for example, a particular act, a particular object, or a particular story.
5. Hempel, Carl G., "Fundamental of Concept Formation in Empirical Sciences," pp. 1-93 in International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (vol. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
6. The term sensual is often used in connection with sexuality. I conceive of the sensual as including all responses of the senses. In this broad sense it would include the appreciation of a sunset as well as an orgasm. In the interests of clarity we must be aware that not all sensual responses are sexual, but all sexual responses are sensual, for they do involve the senses. Sensual, then, is a such broader concept. Like love, the sensual may be emphasized in sexuality by massage and in other ways, but the essence of sexuality is not the sensual nor the possible connection with love. The core of sexuality in my conceptualization is the societal scripting of the pleasure and disclosure aspects of human interactions involving erotic and genital responses. Keep reading this chapter for the full details!
7. The concept of scripts derives from the work of William Simon and John Gagnon. Their most recent statement of their position is contained in
Simon, William, and John Gagnon, "Sexual Scripts: Permanence and Change," Society, vol. 22, no. 1 (November/December 1984), pp. 53-60.
Their concept of script is somewhat complex. In this most recent piece they distinguish between cultural scenarios, interpersonal scripts, and intrapsychic scripts. I do not wish to get involved in the intricacies of these fine distinctions, for they are still in the process of being developed by these authors. Suffice it to say that I use the term cultural scripts basically to mean those ideas shared by most members of a group concerning how people should behave and think and feel in any area of social life. Sexual scripts are those cultural scripts relating to our erotic and genital responses.
Alternatively, I believe the older concepts of interaction models or social roles are a close equivalent to the concept of cultural scripts. An adherent of "script theory" might want to become more involved in the fine distinctions that can be made, but I leave that to others. I use the term script primarily because it has a face validity, a clarity of meaning that is useful. Basically, the term script implies that we are taught a way to behave and think and feel, and that is the essence of all cultural training. It is because it fits so well with clear sociological thinking that I utilize it here. Gagnon and Simon's approach is not a macrosociological one but rather a micro level approach stressing social psychological factors relevant more to the individual than to large social structures. For an early statement of their concept of scripts, see
Gagnon, John, and William Simon, Sexual Conduct. Chicago: Aldine, 1973,
8. Schmidt, Gunter, "Male-Female Differences in Sexual Arousal and Behavior during and after Exposure to Sexually Explicit Stimuli," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 4 (July 1975), pp. 353-365.
There are many other articles on this topic. For sexuality research on this topic and others, I recommend two journals: Journal of Sex Research and Archives of Sexual Behavior.
9. The National Opinion Research Center's polls indicate that since 1975 about 70% of the adult population in the United States feels that there are conditions under which premarital intercourse is acceptable. The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), Cycle I 11, entailed interviews with a representative sample of almost 8,000 women aged 15-44 and found that 21% of the brides marrying in the late 1970s delayed first intercourse until marriage. In the early 1960s the comparable figure was 48%. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, C.A. Bachrach and M.C. Horn, "Marriage and First Intercourse, Marital Dissolution, and Remarriage, U.S., 1982," Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, no. 107. Hyattsville, Md.: Public Health Service, April 1985.
10. Harlow, Harry F,, "The Heterosexual Affection System in Monkeys," American Psychologist, vol. 17 (January 1962), pp. 1-9.
Harlow published a large number of articles on his classic research on this topic. Several are in the American Psychologist and others are in more popular form in the Scientific American.
11. Schwendinger, Julia R., and Herman Schwendinger, Rape and Inequality. Beverely Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1983
12. Groth, A. Nicholas, Men and Rape: The Psychology of the Offender. New York: Plenum Press, 1979.
13. Another example of unintended and unwanted outcomes occurs when parents who are afraid that their daughters will engage in coitus restrict contraceptive information. This behavior increases the chance that if the daughter engages in coitus, she will become pregnant. For discussion of this point see
Rodman, Hyman, Susan H. Lewis, and Saralyn B. Griffith, The Sexual Rights of Adolescents: Competence, Vulnerability, and Parental Control. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
14. I have discussed this trend in Chapter 11 of
Reiss, Ira L., Family Systems in America (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1980.
15. For a brief overview of trends in premarital and other areas of sexuality in America, see
Reiss, Ira L., "Human Sexuality in Sociological Perspective," pp. 39-50 in K.K. Holmes et al. (eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
16. Although there can be a theoretical bridge between a psychological and a sociological approach to sexuality, so far no one has constructed such an edifice in a lasting fashion. Some writings that bear upon such a project are listed here:
Abramson, P.R., The Sexual System: A Theory of Human Sexual Behavior. Orlando: Academic Press, 1982.
Mosher, D.L., "Three Dimensions of Depth and Involvement in Human Sexual Response," The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 16 (February 1980), pp. I42.
Storms, M.D., "Theories of Sexual Orientation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 38, (1980), pp. 783-792.
17. Suggs, Robert C., Marquesan Sexual Behavior. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966.
Marshall, Donald, and Robert C. Suggs, Human Sexual Behavior. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
Elwin Verrier, The Muria and Their Ghotul. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.
18. Harlow, Harry F., "The Heterosexual Affection System in Monkeys," American Psychologist, vol. 17, (January 1962), pp. 1-9.
Harlow's work with monkeys illustrates the point. that our physiological equipment, while essential, needs to be programmed by the society in which we live.
19. Messenger, John C., "Sex and Repression in an Irish Folk Community," Chapter I in Donald S. Marshall and Robert C. Suggs (eds.), Human Sexual Behavior. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
Davenport, William, "Sexual Patterns and Their Regulation in a Society of the SW Pacific," Chapter 8 in Frank A. Beach (ed.), Sex and Behavior. New York: John Wiley, 1965.
Although both Inis Baeg and East Bay are low on sexual permissiveness, they are radically different in that East Bay allows older males to have anal intercourse with teenage males and allows homosexual masturbation among young males as a means of restricting heterosexual coitus. The very thought of that would send shock waves through Inis Baeg and perhaps other places too!
20. Gorer, Geoffrey, Himalayan Village: An Account of the Lepchas of Sikkim (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books, 1967.
Elwin, Verrier, The Baiga. London: John Murray, 1939.
Goodale, Jane, Tiwi Wives. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1971.
I choose these three accounts because they concern distinct societies and they are, relatively speaking, complete.
21. There are several books that are useful to examine for an understanding of child rearing in Polynesia. For an in-depth account read
Levy, Robert, Tahitians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
For a less scholarly account that covers all of Polynesia see
Danielsson, Bengt, Love in the South Seas. New York: Reynal, 1956.
Ritchie, Jane, and James Ritchie, "Polynesian Child Rearing: An Alternative Model," Alternative Lifestyles, vol. 5, no. 3, (Spring 1983), pp. 126-141.
The group nature of reproduction is brought out by Paige and Paige. They point out how reproductive rituals related to menarche, male puberty, childbirth, and menstruation are intended to persuade others as to the value of what is exchanged at marriage.
Paige, K.E,, and J.M. Paige, The Politics of Reproductive Ritual. Berkeley: University of California Press, 198 1.
22. Levy, Robert, Tahitians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 474-483.
23. Two books are worth examining on the Trobriand view of sexuality and pregnancy. The classic work was done by Malinowski almost 70 years ago. The more recent examination was done by Weiner some 15 years ago. Weiner qualifies Malinowski's views somewhat, but not in any way that affects my presentation on this point.
Malinowski, Bronislaw, The Sexual Life of Savage in North-western Melanesia. New York: Harvest Books, 1929.
Weiner, Annette, Women of Value: Men of Renown. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976.
24. Goodale, Jane, Tiwi Wives. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1971.
Berndt, Ronad M., and Catherine H. Berndt, Sexual Behavior in Western Arnhem Land. New York: Viking Fund, 195 1.
25. Elwin is one of those rare anthropologists who have written extensively and carefully on sexual customs. He lived for many years among the Baiga, an aboriginal tribe in central India.
Elwin, Verrier, The Baiga. London: John Murray, 1939.
26. Berndt, Ronald M., and Catherine Berndt, Sexual Behavior in Western Arnhem Land. New York: Viking Fund, 195 1.
27. Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, pp. 651-678. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1953.
28. I have already mentioned the work of Gunter Schmidt in West Germany concerning gender similarities in responses to erotica (see note 8). In a recent article he and his colleagues compare the 1966 student sample with a 1981 West German student sample and report much greater gender similarity. One area where large male-female differences remained is rates of masturbation. Interestingly, in almost all primates males masturbate more than females.
Clement, Ulrich, Gunter Schmidt, and Margret Kruse, "Changes in Sex Differences in Sexual Behavior: A Replication of a Study on West German Students (1966-1980." Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 13, no, 2, (March 1984), pp. 99-120.
29. Ford, C.S., and F.A. Beach, Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper& Row, 1951.
30. For a brief account of one African group that practices clitoridectomy see
Schneider, Harold K., "Romantic Love among the Turu," Chapter 3 in Donald S. Marshall and Robert C. Suggs, (eds.), Human Sexual Behavior. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
For an interesting analysis of this custom see
Lyons, Harriet, "Anthropologists, Moralities, and Relativities: The Problem of Genital Mutilations," The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 18, (November 1981), pp. 499-518.
31. Comfort, Alex, The Anxiety Makers: Some Curious Preoccupations of the Medical Profession. London: Thomas Nelson, 1967.
32. A book on this topic was recently finished by H. Lightfoot Klein based on her studies in the Sudan. She presented a paper on this topic at the 1984 meetings of the International Academy of Sex Research in Cambridge, England.
33. For a full account of a remarkable study of nineteenth-century women carried out by a woman physician (Dr. Mosher), see the book by Degler and also the book by Dr. Mosher:
Mosher, Clelia, The Mosher Survey. New York:Arno Press, 1980.
Degler, Carl, At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.
34. Whyte, Martin K., The Status of Women in Preindustrial Societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978. (See p. 72.)
35. For a brief scholarly historical account see the book by Bullough listed here. For a popular account but with good references and glossary see the Douglas and Slinger book:
Bullough, Vern L., Sexual Variance in Society and History. New York: John Wiley, 1976.
Douglas, Nik, and Penny Slinger, Sexual Secrets: The Alchemy of Ecstasy. New York: Destiny Books, 1979.
36. The concept of self-disclosure is used widely in the social sciences. I used it as part of my "wheel theory" explaining how love develops. Sidney Jourard used it later in a very influential book. See
Reiss, Ira L., "Toward a Sociology of the Heterosexual Love Relationship," Marriage and Family Living, vol. 22 (May 1960), pp. 139-145.
Jourard, Sidney M., Self Disclosure: An Experimental Analysis of the Transparent Self. New York: John Wiley, 1968.
37. Danielsson, Bengt, Love in the South Seas. New York: Reynal, 1956.
38. Davis, Murray, Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 198 3.
39. Masters, William H., and Virginia F. Johnson, Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.
40. Goldfoot, David, H. Westerborg-Van-Loon, W. Groeneveld, and A. Koos Slob, "Behavioral and Physiological Evidence of Sexual Climax in the Female Stump-Tailed Macawue (Macaca Arctoides)," Science, vol. 208 (June 27, 1980), pp. 1477-1479.
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer, The Woman that Never Evolved. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 198 1. (See especially Chapter 8.)
Mitchell, G., Behavioral Sex Differences in Non Human Primates. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979.
41. The public awareness of multiple orgasm by female followed the publication of Masters and Johnson's 1966 book (see note 39). It is significant that Kinsey's mention of this was largely overlooked. It may be that the social climate was not ready for such a revised view of female sexuality until the 1960s.
42. Multiple orgasm has been recognized in much of the world outside the West for a long time. In parts of Polynesia the male and female are both trained at about the time of puberty in techniques that will encourage female multiple orgasm. See
Marshall, Donald S., "Sexual Behavior on Mangaia," Chapter 5 in Donald S. Marshall and Robert C. Suggs (eds.), Human Sexual Behavior: Variations in the Ethnographic Spectrum. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
43. Vannoy, Russell, Sex without Love. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1980. On this same topic see also
Schofield, Michael, Promiscuity. London: Victor Gollancz, 1976.
44. For articles on hedonism as put forth by Jeremy Bentham in the eighteenth century and by other philosophers, I recommend several of the articles in
Edward, Paul (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan, 1967.
45. The process by which I arrived at kinship, power, and ideology as the three areas of major linkage with sexuality was a lengthy one. I took extensive notes on all the readings I did and then integrated my notes into propositions aimed at explaining how sexuality operated in various societies. I composed over 60 such propositions and then examined them to see what common societal structures were involved in those propositions. The three areas of kinship, power, and ideology were by far the most common linkages in my propositions, and that is why they were chosen.