Response to Sara

The reading that I found most thought provoking was “Toward a Global History of Same- Sex Sexuality” by Leila Rupp. She forces the reader to reconsider the molds that have been created for sexual relationships, and even the definition of a sexual relationship. First she explores how in some cultures people participate in “sexual” acts as rites of passages and are not meant to be a part of a romantic relationship. Young boys perform fellatio, but only in order to swallow the semen of a man to become men themselves. Men and women have also been documented to have “friendships” with people of the same sex yet live otherwise heterosexual lives. It is difficult to pinpoint which relationship they would consider a true sexual relationship.
Furthermore, Rupp writes how in relationships there may be more important identifiers than genitals for determining the form of sexual interaction. She gives the example of a young girl explaining that she loves her dog she would marry it if she could, but it’s a female and she realized that wasn’t allowed. Her peer points out the fact that the reason she can’t marry the dog is because it’s a dog. This is an interesting point that I had never really considered. Genitals probably should not be considered the only factor for determining a type of relationship. With this form of categorization, many forms of relationships fall through the cracks. For example, what about intersex people? What about transgendered people? But more than just biological issues with the definition, factors such as age and class may also be more important. For example, child molesters homosexual or heterosexual are considered equally heinous. This article made me realize how limited our current catalog of sexual relationships really is. What is even considered a sexual act is a personal decision based on a variety including one’s culture. Furthermore, the priorities for determining what type of relationship one participates in should not be genitals alone. More important factors (bestiality?!) may be more important than the actual biological sex of the person.