Rupp brings up the issue of “same-sex sexuality” and explores how “same-sex sexuality” goes beyond the term homosexuality. She does this by studying global patterns from many different dates and places. Something I found extremely interesting was that how Rupp defended two bodies of the same genitals now relating to same-sex sexuality, but together due to age difference, class difference and gender difference. She further investigates this topic by studying cultures where men have what we would consider “sexual experiences”, however these experiences are exactly the opposite of sexual. This culture goes back to ancient Athenian society. Elite men had the privilege to have engage in sexual contact with anyone who was beneath them, class wise. They had the power to penetrate women, young men, foreigners and slaves. Rupp questions whether this culture of dominating, elite men has anything to do “same-sex sexuality”. She further identifies other cultures where boys must swallow semen from a man to ensure his transition from boyhood to manhood. This obviously is a foreign concept to most of us as we now have laws against that exact behavior. It is interesting to see how what we see as a sexual experience is seen as a maturity from boy to man. Rupp further discusses Mexico City and how men will dress as women and work as prostitutes. Men, who identify as heterosexuals, will come by and pay for the services of these male prostitutes. Rupp states, “A study of the jotas of Mexico City point out that the “real men” who have sex with men dressed as women eventually, or sometimes, or often, want to reverse roles, even if they will never admit it”. This study is claiming that all men have a sexual desire to encounter a sexual experience of the same-sex but will never admit it. I have trouble understanding this study because I do not see that as true. Of course, some heterosexual men do feel that urge, but I would have to believe most do not. My problem with this article is that Rupp is portraying all men and women to desire the same-sex, whether it may be sexually or love. I find it challenging, once again, because in order for these men to become hard and ejaculate they must have been aroused sexually. Rupp tries to defend that some of these experiences are clearly rituals or tribal practices that are not sexual at all. Scientifically, the dominator, the man, clearly must be sexually aroused for penetration. This leads me to the topic of rape in our modern culture. A classic example, which is illegal, would be Priests having anal sex with young boys. This is a modern example in America and other countries that to me is the most similar to these historic cultural events. I think it is interesting how we think of sex, nowadays, for pleasure for both women and men. However, it is interesting to understand whether a rapist wants sexual pleasure or to display his power. This whole article covers what we have been talking about in class. Men have power over women and if they admit it or not they like to have the power. We talked about men and if they would be willing to give up some of their privilege, power, in order for women to become more privileged or powerful. But when it comes down to it, men seem to always have the power because they are the ones with a penis. This is a scary idea for women especially because biologically they will always have a penis and women will never have one. Does this mean men will always be more powerful? Another thing Rupp and Rich discuss is the idea of a loving relationship as oppose to a purely sexual relationship between two of the same-sex. Rich discusses the continuum of a lesbian friendship on one end and a sexual relationship on the other. I have seen girls have a “girl crush” on another girl, however the relationship was not sexual. With that said it was a very close relationship and in the end one girl turned out to identify as a lesbian. I think is it hard to have a lesbian friendship without considering a sexual relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment