To start class today, I would like you to write a bit about Leila Rupp's history of same-sex sexuality in the United States. First, summarize the argument you think she makes in either Chapter Three ("Worlds of Men, Worlds of Women") or Chapter Four ("Definitions and Deviance"). Do your best to capture the chapter's entire argument and not just one of its sub-arguments.
Then, identify one key example that she draws on to support her claim about sexuality's history. What is the example and how does it relate to her main argument? What is striking or significant about this example? What are its limitations as evidence about sexuality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What struck me as significant in chapter three of Rupp’s A Desired Past, was that most stories in history fit into the confines of what was socially acceptable in the time and place where the story takes place, especially when the stories pertain to sexuality and sexual or intimate practices. Also, the words that we use to describe the acts and feelings that we speak of, have different meanings across time, place, groups, and individuals, so we do not necessarily know what the stories we are reading mean. The words used to describe relationships can cover up their true nature, and when it is exposed, this is when reaction and reconfiguration occurs.
ReplyDeleteRupp talks about the evolution of the concept of sexuality as being a result of the clashes and meshing of different groups and new changes in ways of life, such as industrialization and mobility. In particular, the characterizing of men and women as completely dissimilar led to the founding of romantic same-sex relationships that were not seen as sexual. As the institution of marriage became less central to prosperity, some people replaced marriage with a same-sex partnership. Once these partnerships stood alone, they were “out of the box” so to speak. They existed outside of a norm, and people called them unnatural and perverted.
Another things that was not as pronounced in the chapter, but stayed in my mind is Rupps comment that, “our modern categories of heterosexuality and homosexuality (and even bisexuality) are not complex enough to capture the slippery reality of love and desire.” When I read this, I thought to myself that although we have unearthed so much of what is buried in the stories and terms used, we still don’t have terms that explain this complexity of human emotion and desire. We still categorize people by sexualities that totalize their feelings, practices, and identities.
After reading Chapter Three from Leila’s Rupp’s History of Same-Sex Sexuality in the United States, and have to say that her main argument in this chapter is that same sex practices really came up from the fact that women and men separated themselves so much that they really only associated, and formed close bonds with those of the same sex. During the turn of the ninetieth century what men were supposed to be, and what women were supposed to be was literally polar opposite. So they found it quite natural that most people would find their “soul mate” within their own sex. Of course the term soul mate to them meant life-long friend or something along those lines. Society allowed very close bonds to be formed, and in the cases of some men and women, those friendships grew to love.
ReplyDeleteI think they key example that supports this claim is the passage of Romantic Friendships and in particular the letters that women sent to one another. These letters are filled with proclaims and love, and very sensual writing. Take for example the letters Emily Dickenson sent to Sue Gilbert. “Susie will you indeed come home next Saturday, and be my own again, and kiss me as you used to? I hope for you so much, and feel so eager for you, feel that I cannot wait, feel that now I must have you- that the expectation once more to see our face again, makes me feel hot and” feverish, and my heart beats so fast.” This very significant because this is a letter filled with so much passion, and of course women could not act, say or write such things down when speaking of or to a man…but when it was women together is was allowed. Of course this is romantic but no one really knows if sexual relations took place between any of these women, but what we can infer that these women did indeed love one anther very deeply, a much more passionately then just a “friend.”
One of her arguments is based around were "friendship" starts and if it grows into a "romantic friendship" how people define themselves or label themselves? And were the line is draw from a "friendship" of were people did cuttle and kiss to a "romantic friendship" were they cross the line for sex. Most of her stories are about people who fall vastly in love with the same sex, but still consider themselves "normal" or straight(ish). Even for people who eventually end up living together or write faun love letters to one another for their whole lives, they still consider themselves to be straight. They just have a love one the side. One example (that is kind of controversial) is the example of Walt Whitman. He took on many male lovers (and some boys lovers) but insisted that all his writings and true loves were women. Other examples were Ab Lincoln (we also discussed in class last time), and how he shared the same bed with a very close friend for many years until he was married. All of these people chose not to label these affairs they had with the same-sex friends and continued life as if they were straight. Most of the time this happened they would marry someone of the opposite sex and always it was talked about if it were two women often saying "if one of us were male, we defiantly would marry" like is the story of Addie Brown and Rebecca Primus. so they did have this conscience notion of straight as a reality.
ReplyDeleteShe talks a lot about these points but they are sometimes hard to find in history because a lot of the documentation and letters were destroyed so little evidence is left.
Summary: Men and women were divided into two seperate spheres in industrialization. Because of this, there were more places for same-sex relations to happen (known sometimes as romantic friendships). These relationships happened from love, desire, need, especially in the areas of single sex societies on the Frontier. Gender transgressions also occured both for economic need and naturual need.
ReplyDeleteOne exampleRupp uses is that of Davy Crocket. She gives two myths about him, after also explaining that he is said to have a wife and children. In both these myths, Crocket is very dominant and sexual, once with a horse and once with a stagecoach driver. There is very homoerotic language used; however, as with most literature of this time, it is hard to say what actually occured as well as the level of intimacy between the men or animals, if any at all.
Summation: Men and women were two vastly different genders. This mayjor difference in accoradance to the way in which the frontier was developed produced largely seperate gendered living spaces. With virtually nothing in common with the opposte sex (aside from the need of the other to procreate) each gender found comfort within their own realm. Thus romantic friendships and such emerged.
ReplyDeleteThis can be seen in the multiple stories present between women writing love letters to eachother, even after being apart and getting married. These bonds were deep and true.