The Connection between Humanity and Sexuality - Essay Example

Humanity and Sexuality Introduction: The history of development and progress of humanity is integrally related to sexuality. According to several literary, critical and philosophical discourses, both these aspects, on several occasions complement and supplement each other (Tavard, 1992, p. 178). There is no denial of the fact that sexuality is a spontaneous organic reaction of human beings and one of the most basic features of humanity both as an entity as well as a universal philosophy (Bennett, Grossberg, Morris, and Williams, 2005, p. 319). However, despite presence of such integral connection between humanity and sexuality, the latter has always been regarded as an issue of strict condemnation or prohibition. Irrespective of differences in socio-cultural, political and socio-religious perspectives, practice of sexuality or expression of sexual orientations has received negative response both from common people and social institutions (Metz and McCarthy, 2007, p. 60). An overview of the history of sexuality clearly provides evidence in support of the observation that conventional social approach, though, only has approved sexual relationship between male and female that is also after development of a socially accepted marital relationship, however, practices of sexual variations, such as, homosexuality, bisexuality, oral and anal sex, cross-dressing, and group sex have continued since early dawn of the human civilization. Technological advancement has also introduced application of devices that enhance the charm of such sexual practices. The kind of oppression, which is mainly exaggerated on practicing variations of sexuality, is grounded on the argument that these practices actually violate norms of morality as prescribed by socio-religious institutions (Feinberg, 1988, p. 139). Homosexuality is one such practices, which was always been attempted to show as a corrupt sexual practice since time immemorial. Despite the fact that different societies have responded to homosexual or homo-erotic practices in different ways, on some occasions with strict condemnation and on others as a normative practice, but progress of this variation of sexual practice could not be stopped; rather since last few years homosexual practices have become one of the major issues in the context of Western social discourse. The modernist approach, though, has obtained quite a liberalistic opinion regarding homosexuality, however, it cannot be said that traits of discrimination have entirely been obliterated; rather a strong undercurrent of discrimination still obstructs homosexuality from being regarded as a normative human sexual impulse. Reasons behind oppressing Homosexuality: Most of the major ancient religious disciplines, such as, Zorosatrianism, Judaism and Christianity have clearly regarded homosexual practices as an essential vice and also have said down several ways with which practitioners of such sexual variation can be condemned. While searching for reason behind such hostility against homosexuality, it has been suggested on repeated occasions that conventional approach towards both social affairs and life are dependent on binary opposites such as, good-bad, God-Devil, Hell-Heaven, Men-Women, so on and so forth. Since inception of the patriarchal social set up, it was determined that males are required to certain functions and they also should act in such a manner which would exhibit their respective supremacy over their women counterparts; women, on the other hand, are expected to act as subordinate to their male counterparts. In the context of sexual practices, physical intercourse between men and women are considered natural (Greenberg, 1988). Conventionally, it is regarded that one of the most important prove of manhood is his capacity to get involved in physical relationship with a woman; sexual practices between two males are considered derogatory because it deviates- first, from conventional notion and second, it goes against the conventional approach of manhood. Thus, practice of homosexuality has been prohibited by most of the religious disciplines and it order to restrain people from being involved in such practices, clear suggestions have been made to refer such activism “as a source of putrefaction and corruption” (Greenberg, 1988, p. 189). The early Hebrew Bible is equally strict against homoerotic practices, as it has specifically suggested, “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus; cited in Greenberg, 1988, p. 190). Another important reason that homosexuality is treated with such pervasive hostility because it is commonly regarded as heinous and “ritually unclean” (Greenberg, 1988, p. 195). Every religion has certain code of ethics and depending on these codes a human being is expected to orient his/her actions within the domain of social existence. Practicing homosexuality is regarded as of the highest magnitude among other forms of ritual uncleanness and also is considered as one of the most degradable reflections of moral corruption (Greenberg, 1988). While the religious disciplines consider heterosexual intercourse as normal as it is in accordance with laws of natural existence, homosexuality defies such normality and presents an image of both socio-cultural and religious antagonism. However, when it comes to treatment of homosexuality in Greek and Roman cultures, we receive quite a different picture than that of the Iranian, Hebrew, Aryan and to some extent, in the Islamic culture. The great Greek philosopher Plato is of opinion that though “…lust could be heterosexual or homosexual, he took for granted that the strongest sexual impulse would be homosexual” (Greenberg, 1988, p. 203-204). The successors of Plato, such as, Aristotle and Epicurus, in their respective philosophical discourse, have also provided considerable importance on homosexual practices and for the sake pleasure they also have taken it in a quite normative human organic affair. Both these philosophers, though in a different manner than that of Plato, have asserted that “the pursuit of pleasure was the highest good in life” (Greenberg, 1988, p. 204); thus, such pleasure can be attained in either form of heterosexual or homosexual relationship keeping in mind that “All excess to be avoided” (Greenberg, 1988, p. 204). Traits of Greek philosophical approach can also be viewed in the domain of Roman observation towards homosexual practices. Despite the fact that Roman philosophers such as Cicero have never encouraged homosexuality, as he opined that like heterosexual lover if suppressed, it can give birth to “unrestrained anxiety, passion, and longing” (Greenberg, 1988, p. 206). Thus, he found it prudent to avoid such love; however, even if it cannot be avoided entirely, homosexuality should not be enjoyed in such a manner so that it would amount of shamefulness (Greenberg, 1988, p. 206). Compared to the other religious disciplines, it is seen that Greek and Roman approach towards homosexuality is much liberal. Though none of these disciplines have entirely support such practice, at the same time, either of these disciplines has also not condemned it like that of Christian, Hebrew or Iranian culture (Greenberg, 1988). Compared to the religious disciplines, Greek and Roman approaches have provided more emphasis on attainment of pleasure, whereas the religious disciplines have provided highest importance on disciplining the common people even at the cost of sacrificing their personal desire for sexual pleasure. One of the basic lessons of humanist approach has been to provide highest importance on requirement of common people as individuals and give them the opportunity to exercise their respective wish, unless such exercising is violating basic liberty of others. In the name of religion and protecting morality, what the institutions are going is against the norms of humanist approach. Like heterosexual love, homosexuality is also a spontaneous human reaction and it can also be practiced till it damages an individual’s sexual preferences or his notion of morality (Greenberg, 1988). Response to Homosexuality aftermath and in Modern era: Since inception of the Middle Ages, when Christianity was gradually prevailing as one of the most powerful religious disciplines in the entire world, reaction against homosexual practices became even more rigid. According to available historical references, during 12th Century, perhaps most drastic legislative steps were taken against homosexual behavior (Davies, 1982) and it was also been asserted that implementation of such treatment against such approach was necessary as leaders of the society felt that if encouraged then homosexual practices can put the bright stature of Christianity to ignominy, “The sexual behavior of the sodomists, which was perceived as transgressing natural boundaries, was savagely suppressed because it was a reminder and a metaphor of the threatened identity and integrity of the group itself” (Davies, 1982, p. 1043). The entire situation even got worse as the Catholic Church transformed into “a centralized bureaucratic hierarchy of celibate priests from the later medieval period onward indicates the importance of strongly bounded hierarchical organizations of this type as upholders of strong sexual taboos” (Davies, 1982, p. 1047). Church and army were two strongest social institutions that condemned exercise of homosexual behavior both in society and within the respective institutions. However, consequence of such oppression in name of discipline was not very fruitful: there are instances of sexual behaviorist outbursts among practitioners of the religion; in military, despite undertaking extreme harsh ways of condemning homosexuality, such practices could not be stopped entirely (Davies, 1982). Starting from lower to higher divisions, homosexual practices were prevalent, breaking down the conventional social taboos, most importantly the conventional approach that perception of military officials as homosexuals would act adversely in public notion (Davies, 1982. p. 1049-1055). The 20th century intellectual movement played an important role in introducing transformations at different layers of social construction as well as conventional approach to interpret different variations of sexuality. It was expected that liberalization of thought would make situation easy for people in the context of practicing different variations of sexuality, especially homo-eroticism (Rubin, 1989). However, such futile was scope of the observation that it becomes clear from the observation, “In the 1950s, in the United States, major shift in the organization of sexuality too place. Instead of focusing on prostitution or masturbation, the anxieties of the 1950s condensed most specifically around the image of the “homosexual menace” and the dubious specter of the “sex offender” (Rubin, 1989. p. 269). Compared to the earlier times, condemnation of homosexual behavior was not done with extreme violence; rather both administration and media took the path of humiliating the homosexuals from exercising their sexual preferences (Rubin, 1989. p. 270-271). One of the most important reasons behind such discrimination and oppression against variations of sexuality, more specifically homosexuality is the “sex negativity”. The Western socio-cultural and religious discourse widely considers that sex “inherently sinful” and it is also a “destructive, dangerous, negative force” (Rubin, 1989. p. 278). No matter how much society changes or intellectual perception of common people regarding social affairs transforms, the general observation regarding sex has remained the same. Homosexuality, like heterosexual relations is just another form of expressing sexual preference: this truth has not yet reached to the extent of spontaneous human acceptance (Rubin, 1989). Antagonism against homosexuality has taken a form of an institution, which has received an upper hand over humanism as the noblest philosophy. Unless common people realize that homosexuality is as normative as that of any other form of heterosexuality, the hostile reactions against sexual variations, such as homosexuality would not change. References Bennett, T. Grossberg, L. Morris, M. and Williams, R. (2005). New keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Davies, C. (1982). “Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries”. The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 87. 5. London: The University of Chicago Press. Feinberg, J. (1988). Offense to Others. New York: Oxford University Press US. Greenberg, D.F. (1988). “Sexual Asceticism in the Ancient World”. The Construction of Homosexuality. London: The University of Chicago Press. McCarthy, B.W. and Metz, M.E. (2007). Mens sexual health: fitness for satisfying sex. New York: CRC Press Rubin, G. (1989). “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. London: Pandora Press. Tavard, G.H. (1992). The church, community of salvation: an ecumenical ecclesiology. Minnesota: Liturgical Press. Read More