A Sociological Journey Into Sexuality

A Sociological Journey into Sexuality Author(s): Ira L. Reiss Source: Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 48, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 233-242 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/352390 Accessed: 10/02/2009 03:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and the Family.

http://www.jstor.org

A Sociological Journey into Sexuality IRA L. REISS University of Minnesota The Freudian, Marxian, and sociobiological explanations of sexuality are not well designed for answering questions concerning differences among societies or groups in their sexual lifestyles. A macro-level, societal explanation of sexuality is needed to answer such questions. Such a theory is lacking in sociology but is developed in this paper. Sexuality is defined as a societal product whose importance lies more in its physical pleasure and selfdisclosure aspects than in its reproductive potential. Those qualities are universally valued because they are the building blocks of social relationships. This paper proposes that sexuality is universally linked to the social structure in three specific areas: (a) marital jealousy, (b) gender role power, and (c) beliefs about normality. Variations and interrelations of these three linkages are explained by the logical structure of this sociological theory. Evidence concerning the theory is explored by examining the Standard Cross Cultural Sample, National Opinion Research Center surveys, and individual research on other societies. The sociological explanation presented here applies to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships and to both industrial and nonindustrial societies. A number of specific, interrelatedpropositions that explain societal variations within the three universal linkage areas are explored. The logical structure of the theory is developed as the context of those propositions. The paper also treats the relevance of this theory for the applied professions dealing with sexuality.

differences in sexuality that exist in cultures with similar economic systems. The orthodox Marxian approach also has difficulty in explaining the exploitation of one gender by the other that exists in societies without private property, such as hunting and gathering societies, or for that matter, the present-day People's Republic of China (Stacey, 1983). Nevertheless, the relationship of sexuality to positions of social power is one that I have developed in other ways in my own work, and so I do retain some elements of Marxism. The more recent sociobiological explanation has little relevance for explaining cross-cultural variations and changes over a few generations. Sociobiology deals with biological determinants that operate over many thousands of years and thus cannot explain a change in sexual customs that occurs in one generation, nor can it explain variations in This paper is a revised version of the 1984 Burgess AwardAddress,whichwas givenat the annualmeeting sexual customs that occur within the same genetic of the NationalCouncilon FamilyRelationsin Dallas, sex in different societies. But if one rejects most of these dominant exTexas, 7 November1985. planatory schemas, what does one substitute? Departmentof Sociology, University of Minnesota, During the last 25 years or so there have only been a few attempts in sociology at theory building Minneapolis,MN 55455.

This article presents a brief overview of a booklength societal-level explanation of sexuality that I have recently completed (Reiss, 1986). As a sociologist I have been dissatisfied with the Freudian explanation of universal stages of psychosexual development. Such an approach was too psychological and too much simply a reflection of Viennese culture in the early 20th century to permit us to explain many of the differences in sexuality that exist among various societies. Another popular approach is the Marxian view, stressing the importance of the economic system in the exploitation of one group by another. I have perceived the Marxian view of sexuality as, among other things, being unable to explain the many

Journalof Marriageand the Family48 (May 1986):233-242

233

234

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

concerning sexuality, and even those have not attempted an overall, cross-cultural explanation of all types of sexuality (Reiss, 1960, 1967, 1979, 1980; Gagnon and Simon, 1973; Christensen, 1962; Ehrmann, 1959; Delamater and MacCorquodale, 1979). These efforts have consisted of partial or minitheories applying only to specific types of sexuality or to just our own society. No comprehensive sociological theory of human sexuality has been formulated. I began to work upon this task some five years ago. It was indeed a massive undertaking, for it presumed extensive knowledge of cultures around the world as well as of existing explanatory sociological propositions. The challenge was not only to become familiar with this literature but somehow to integrate it conceptually with new propositions into a macro-level, societal explanation of sexuality. I stress a macro-level approach in my theory. Research and theory at micro level of analysis focuses on interaction and socialization processes. Such an approach could examine sexuality in terms of such things as individual adjustments in sexual scripts. Analysis at this level has been quite modest in terms of theory development (Singer, 1985; Simon and Gagnon, 1984). I have integrated some aspects of a micro-level analysis into my explanation, but basically it is built upon a macro foundation that comparatively examines and seeks to explain different sexual behaviors and attitudes in various groups and societies. I chose this macro-level approach because it was related to some of my previous theorizing, it was of primary interest to me, and it is the most distinctively sociological tradition. I also felt it had been the most neglected by other theorists. I spent the better part of four years reading, discussing, and formulating my ideas for this venture. Given the stage of development of sociological explanations of sexuality, my theory is of necessity based considerably on its logical structure; empirical evidence is not available to test all of its parts. Nevertheless, I did examine what evidence was available to test my ideas. The Standard Cross Cultural Sample of 186 nonindustrial societies around the world (Murdock and White, 1969) was useful in this regard. In addition, my own reading of other nonindustrial societies as well as of Western industrial societies allowed me to examine the fit of my thinking with these additional data. In this paper I will present an overview and point out the major features of the theory I discuss in my book (Reiss, 1986). Finally, I should note that I developed this sociological theory of sexuality not only for sociologists, but

for anyone with a serious intellectual interest in understanding sexuality. A SOCIETAL CONCEPTION OF SEXUALITY First we must clarify what we mean by concepts like sex, gender, and sexuality so that we may communicate clearly. The word sex has multiple meanings in our society. The term sometimes refers to genetic sex, sometimes to gender, and sometimes to sexual activity: for example, "Her sex is female"; "Her sex role is that of a woman"; "She had sex with him." These different potential meanings must be clarified if we are to have a shared, societal-level definition of sexuality. We cannot change the way the word sex is used in public discourse but we can clarify our scientific usage. I suggest that in our scientific discourse we use the word sex to mean only genetic sex, that is, XX (female) or XY (male). For the sake of clarity, I would use the phrase gender role, and not sex role, to refer to the rights and duties assigned to those called males and females in a society. Such clarification is sufficient for our use of the terms genetic sex and gender role, but we still need a definition of the word sexuality that is precise and measurable, because sexuality is the focus of my sociological theory. I would define human sexuality as consisting of those cultural scripts aimed at erotic arousal that produce genital responses. I believe this definition would hold for any type of society. It can be tested by seeing if this is indeed what people mean by sexuality in various societies. It can further be examined to discern whether the genital responses that occur in all societies can be largely related to the sexual scripts aimed at erotic arousal rather than to biological or individualistic factors. According to my sociological definition, sexuality is learned and it is learned in a societal context. Sexuality is thus not "natural," nor is it individualistic; rather, it is a social outcome that we learn to achieve in much the same way as we do our friendship and love relationships. In this sense I am qualifying the assertion frequently made by Masters and Johnson that if you "remove the road blocks, sex will work" (Masters and Johnson, 1970). That statement seems to imply that there is a natural sexual outcome that will flow forth. I believe sexuality is programmed just as other social behavior, and it will not "work" unless that social programming has occurred. It is not just a matter of removing road blocks from an innate pathway; rather, it is primarily a matter of having been socially taught how to create a path-

235

SEXUALITY way that will lead to sexual interaction with others. Presuming we agree upon this definition of sexuality, the next question concerns the place of sexuality in the social structure of human societies. I would start by asserting that in all cultures, sexuality is viewed as important. This is so in cultures that attempt to restrict it as well as those that encourage it. In short, no culture is indifferent to sexuality. Why is this so? My answer rejects the common reply that sexuality is seen as important because of its reproductive consequences. Allow me to explain. In most nonindustrial societies the connection of sexuality to pregnancy is not as direct as we perceive it to be in industrial societies today. Pregnancy is often seen as not simply resulting from acts of intercourse but rather as an outcome of one particular type of sexuality, such as repetitive coitus with one's marriage partner. Further, pregnancy only occurs in many cultures if the husband, in addition to copulating, gives the "spirit child" to his wife (Berndt and Berndt, 1951). In addition, the production and care of children is often seen as a group activity of many related kin and not just the concern of one couple (Levy, 1973). In this sense reproduction is not an individual biological act but a group undertaking. In the above ways, then, what we in the West scientifically view as the biological connection of sexuality to reproduction is seriously modified in the shared thinking of people in other cultural settings. Even in our type of society, where we stress the biological connections and reproductive outcomes of sexuality, the importance we place on sexuality is not only due to that perspective. Consider the fact that, although 10-year-olds cannot become pregnant, we are more restrictive of 10-year-olds having coitus than of 20-year-olds. That surely points to our assigning importance to some aspect of sexuality other than reproduction. Think also of the importance placed upon sexuality by homosexuals-pregnancy is not even an issue there. In addition, would a husband with a sterile wife view sexuality as less important than would a husband with a fertile wife? All of this is not to deny that the reproductive capacity of sexuality is usually one factor in the importance placed upon sexuality, but rather, it is to assert that in many societies reproduction is perceived differently and is often not the most crucial factor. Two other major factors, in my view, are more central and universal features of sexuality than is reproduction. I submit that they are the key reasons for the importance all societies place upon sexuality. If all reproductive outcomes of sexuali-

ty were to vanish, these two factors would still maintain its universal importance. The first characteristic of sexuality that contributes to its evaluation as important is the obvious one of physical pleasure. Clearly, human beings value physical pleasure, and sexuality has a good probability of yielding pleasure in some degree. The second characteristic is perhaps not quite so obvious; it is self-disclosure, or the revelation to others of intimate aspects of the self. I do not necessarily imply affectionate ties when I speak of self-disclosure. Consider that one does not typically have orgasms in public, and thus the simple act of experiencing orgasm in front of another human being is an uncommon disclosure of oneself. That kind of self-disclosure may lead to disclosure on levels other than the sexual, such as the intellectual, emotional, or affectionate. Cultures differ as to which outcomes they choose to encourage and under what conditions. But the basic selfdisclosure of showing passion is a most common (though, of course, not guaranteed) outcome of sexual relationships. Why should physical pleasure and self-disclosure make sexuality important in all societies? The answer is, I believe, that those are the key characteristics of important social relationships. To illustrate, think of friendship and kinship relationships. They are everywhere valued and they too, at their core, entail physical pleasure and selfdisclosure. There is physical pleasure in the embraces (nonsexual) that occur in friendship and kinship relationships, and there is self-disclosure in what such friends and kin are willing to reveal to each other. What kind of close relationship would it be if there were no physical contact and no self-disclosure? Such pleasure and disclosure elements are the nucleus of almost all valued human relationships. Therefore, since sexuality possesses, in pleasure and disclosure, the building blocks of human relationships, it is universally recognized that sexuality has within itself the components that are valued in human relationships. Not all forms of sexuality are equally valued, but the relationship potential of sexual encounters is widely recognized. It is for that reason, I contend, that sexuality is everywhere viewed as important. Given this key place of sexuality in human interaction, we will explore how it is woven into the social fabric of different societies. UNIVERSAL LINKAGES In both its logical and empirical aspects, my investigation supported the view that in all societies sexuality is linked in some fashion to three elements of the social structure: (a) marital jealousy, (b) gender role power, and (c) beliefs

236

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

about normality. These three areas are subdivisions, respectively, of the broader kinship, power, and ideological components found in all social systems. I will try to detail the linkages for each of these three components of social systems. The first linkage of sexuality is to marital jealousy. Here it is proposed that jealousy, on a macro level, is most accurately seen as a boundary-maintenance mechanism that aims at protecting those relationships socially viewed as important. Since we have already asserted that sexuality is universally considered important, it follows that at least some types of sexual relationships will be protected by jealousy boundaries. Furthermore, since marriage is also everywhere valued, when one combines sexuality with marriage it surely will produce a relationship viewed as worthy of protection by jealousy boundaries. In case you may question whether sexuality outside of marriage is deemed important enough to deserve the protection of jealousy customs, think about jealousy in homosexual and heterosexual cohabiting relationships. Recent evidence in the United States indicates that jealousy is strongly present in such relationships (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983). On a social-psychological or micro level, jealousy is a negative emotional response to a felt threat from an outsider to a valued relationship. The society we live in informs us as to which relationships are supposed to have the boundary mechanism of jealousy. Some forms of sexual relationships are always among those relationships that societies choose to protect. I investigated those cultures such as the Lepcha and the Greenland Eskimos that others have asserted are lacking in marital sexual jealousy (Gorer, 1967; O'Kelly, 1980; Sanders, 1956). My examination led me to the conclusion that despite the claims of some, all these cultures do indeed have marital sexual jealousy. To be sure, there are variations in the jealousy boundaries, for in many nonindustrial societies extramarital sexuality with people other than one's mate is permitted. For example, in many societies the levirate custom permits such extramarital relationships with an older brother's wife. But even there the relation must be carried out with low social visibility and great tact. In such cases there still clearly are boundaries protecting the priority of the marital relationship, even though some extramarital sexual partners are on occasion permitted. Jealousy is obviously present in such societies, and although it is structured somewhat differently than in the Western world, it surely is tied to marital sexuality. My investigation led me to conclude that although the intensity varies, sexual

jealousy protecting the priority of marriage would appear to be, in some form, universally present. There is a common feeling that sexual relationships outside the marriage may be intrusive and may violate the priority of the marital dyad. The self-disclosure and pleasure aspects of sexuality in a stable relationship endow it with the aura of a private confidence that should not be casually disrupted. Thus, even when extramarital relationships are legitimated, they occur as controlled satellites of the more important marital dyad. In line with some of my theoretical propositions on power, I concluded that those who were more powerful in economic and political terms would be more likely to react to jealousy with greater violence and aggression. I tested this out by comparing male and female jealousy patterns under various conditions of gender inequality. The results indicated considerable support for my beliefs. Males were much more likely to express aggression in response to jealousy, in accord with the extent to which they were more powerful than females. Females in a great many cultures most often responded to jealousy-provoking situations with depression rather than aggression against others. The second societal linkage area for sexuality is to gender roles, particularly in relation to the relative power of each gender. It follows from the assertion that sexuality is viewed as important that those in power will seek to get as much of this valued element as their culture would permit. The underlying proposition is that those in power control whatever the society views as important, and thus, since sexuality is viewed as important, those in power will have greater access to that area of social life. Further, since in most societies males have greater power than females, it follows that males will have greater sexual rights than females. In testing out the relationship of sexual rights to male power in the Standard Sample, I found that patrilineal societies (tracing descent only through the paternal grandfather's line) displayed more male as opposed to female sexual rights than did matrilineal societies (tracing descent only through the maternal grandmother's line). I also found that when, in addition to tracing descent through the male line, males lived together, there was a greater likelihood of a low evaluation of the female gender. Social systems that promote common male residence seem to lower the status of females. This lower status may well be a result of increased male power in such societies. Relevant to this power linkage are my findings, previously cited, concerning the relationship of the relative power of each gender to the likelihood of an ag-

SEXUALITY gressive response to marital jealousy. That finding is congruent with the role of power as a key determinant of sexual customs. The third societal linkage of sexuality is to ideology. I use ideology here to refer to the strongly held, shared beliefs about fundamental human nature that exist in a society. Such beliefs are relevant to sexuality, for they imply how equal or nonequal females are to males and how similar their sexual rights should be. Sexual ideologies are subtypes of the general ideology in a society, and they revolve about two dimensions: (a) overall gender equality and (b) the relative sexual permissiveness allowed to each gender. Regarding sexual ideologies, the evidence from recent studies indicates that females in America have endorsed overall gender equality in political, economic, religious, and family institutions more fully than they have accepted equality in terms of sexual rights. This pattern is most obvious in the degree to which females as opposed to males still hesitate to endorse casual or body-centered sexuality (Lottes, 1985). In contrast to this are the findings that males have accepted sexual equality for both genders but show some reluctance to endorse overall gender equality. The trend between males and females is toward a convergence of these beliefs, but clearly we are still in transition. Other cultures reflect these same differences, which are related to the fact that males are in most societies more powerful in the political, economic, and other institutions and thus believe that this is a "natural" state of affairs. They resist giving up their power and accepting full gender equality, even though they favor promoting greater acceptance of sexual behavior on the part of females. All these perspectives appear to be logically based on Western beliefs about sexuality and gender concerning what is "natural" for males and females to do. We believe it is natural for females to be less interested in casual sexuality, and sociobiologists are quick to think up underlying evolutionary advantages to account for this condition. Their theories overlook those cultures where the human female doesn't appear to have such beliefs. Although there are general trends in our society toward new types of gender roles and new sexual orientations, some hesitancies about male and female role changes seem to reflect our conformity to older ideological beliefs. Ideology seems to be important in delaying as well as promoting change, both in the direction of those in power and in opposing directions. These findings are one reason why I have modified the orthodox Marxian position that ideologies basically support those groups that are in power.

237 I assume that in general it is our ideological beliefs that promote our popular perspectives on sexual normality. We can see this clearly in our views in the Western world about homosexuality. There homosexual behavior is viewed as competitive with heterosexuality, and accordingly it is condemned, restricted, and viewed as "abnormal." I speak here of homosexual behavior because there is so little cross-cultural evidence on homosexual preference. In some parts of the world, as in the New Guinea Highlands, homosexual behavior is viewed as a pathway to heterosexuality and is widely supported (Herdt, 1981). Herdt reports that, in the Sambia, preadolescent boys are taught to fellate older unmarried males and ingest their sperm in order to be able to produce their own sperm in adulthood and thereby be able to impregnate their wives. After marriage, Herdt estimates, over 95%o of these males give up their homosexual behavior because they perceive such behavior as predominantly a pathway to the heterosexuality that they now have achieved in marriage. In such a society the sexual ideology would judge homosexual behavior as not competitive with heterosexuality but as supportive of it. The explanatory proposition that applies to the Sambia case as well as to societies in the West would be that sexuality is socially approved in accord with the degree to which it is seen as supportive of accepted gender and kinship roles. People in Sambia and in the United States do not agree on how homosexual behavior and heterosexuality relate, but both societies seem to afford priority to whatever sexual relationships they see as supportive of the gender and kinship roles in that society. Another interpretation concerning homosexuality emerged from my examination of the Standard Sample. I found that homosexual behavior was highest in those societies wherein the mother was heavily involved with infants and the father was not so involved. A Freudian would look at such a situation and claim that it was the psychodynamics of a dominant mother and an absent father that led to homosexuality. My interpretation of these same data is different. I see the close mother and distant father involvement with infants as an indirect measure of male power. Such gender roles reflect a male-dominant society in which men are occupied in the political and economic institutions and thus are only peripherally involved in child care. That type of institutional involvement creates a narrow, segregated male gender role while at the same time giving little opportunity for the very young male child to interact with male models. Further, such narrow male

238

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

roles will likely lead to more males finding such a restricted role uninteresting or difficult to achieve. It may be in part from such pressures that increased nonconformist homosexual behavior occurs in societies like our own. Note, however, that in societies like the Sambia, homosexual behavior would not be so likely to function as an alternative to heterosexuality for those who are unhappy with the narrow male gender role. In the Sambia type of society, homosexual behavior would be an expected part of the sexual upbringing model and not a deviant choice. I believe that homosexual behavior may be encouraged by the close male groupings and living arrangements that go along with such maledominant societies. We have evidence that among rhesus monkeys, bringing up infants with only their own genetic sex increases the likelihood of homosexual behavior (Goldfoot, Wallen, Neff, McBriar, and Goy, 1984). My point here is that a cross-cultural and sociological approach affords interpretations that are at odds with our culture's traditional views of homosexuality and its relationship to heterosexuality. The cross-cultural approach forces us to consider other explanations of even those sexual customs we may have felt we fully understood. It surely calls into question the validity of many of our traditional theories of homosexuality that clearly do not apply across cultures. Our common views concerning what is "normal" sexually can easily influence our scientific views. This may be particularly applicable to those who provide therapy. The case of premature ejaculation is illustrative. A generation ago very few people were going to therapists for treatment of premature ejaculation. The concept of premature ejaculation is based upon an equalitarian view of heterosexual coital relationships. It is predominantly when the female's orgasm is of concern that a male will view himself as a premature ejaculator. He is "premature" in terms of the cultural ideal that his partner should have a coital orgasm if he does. In cultures with a more prominent double standard, such concerns are not so strongly felt and thus do not drive people to enter therapy. In some societies, as East Bay in Melanesia, males are expected to reach orgasm in 15 to 30 seconds or else it is felt that they have a problem of "delayed ejaculation" (Davenport, 1965). Such "problems" appear to be less a matter of a disrupted personality system than a matter of conformity to sexual norms. Finally, note that in our society a female who reaches orgasm in seconds after vaginal penetration is not considered to be prematurely orgasmic; rather, she is often praised as "responsive." This may well be

so because in male-dominated societies there is little cultural concern that she will leave her partner unsatisfied, and her speedy orgasm may satisfy his desire to view himself as a "good" lover. Think about the way that premature ejaculation is commonly treated and it will become even more obvious how our cultural values and not any scientific criterion of "abnormality" define this behavior. The squeeze technique is the most common method used to "correct" the problem of premature ejaculation. This highly effective method involves the female partner squeezing the penis when the man is close to ejaculation, thereby stopping the ejaculation and teaching the man that he can control it. To those raised in our culture, where heterosexual coitus is the epitome of sexuality, this seems a natural solution to the problem. But think about the alternative approaches that could be suggested to a client by a therapist. The therapist could inform the client that the male can aid the female in reaching climax orally or manually, either before or after his orgasm. That would be a way of "equalizing" the orgasmic outcomes. But our society teaches that coitus should be the central sexual act, and most often both partners want orgasm in coitus. To be sure, young people today are somewhat less focused on coitus only, but the emphasis is still there. Freudian analysts and others may well define as abnormal any focus on oral, anal, or manual sexuality in preference to or equal with coitus. It is easy to speculate why Western societies have placed such great importance upon this aspect of sexual behavior. Because it is the way to produce future soldiers, servants, workers, and citizens, many societies that seek power emphasize coitus. Perhaps of equal interest is the fact that in the name of equality we promote a sexual act, coitus, that clearly produces orgasm more easily in the male than in the female. Many women report much more difficulty in achieving orgasm coitally than they have in oral or manual sexual acts (Masters and Johnson, 1966, 1970). Thus, ironically, the therapy for producing orgasmic equality involves promoting a sexual act not equally suited to female orgasm. The fact that females also prefer orgasm in coitus does not dispute this statement but merely points to how females have been indoctrinated into a male type of sexuality. The significance of our examination of premature ejaculation is that it demonstrates how we can politicize therapy. To be sure, many younger therapists would not call premature ejaculation a disorder, an abnormality, or a dysfunction, but many others such as Freudian analysts would. The

SEXUALITY fact of the matter is that we lack in therapy a clear scientific standard for declaring some actions abnormal. Because of that the ideological beliefs about abnormality that are commonly held in the society may easily be adopted by the therapist and used as if they were based on scientific evidence. This possibility is most likely to occur in an area as emotionally charged as is sexuality. The strength of our views concerning the wrongness of certain sexual acts may make it easy for us to feel that there must be some scientific basis for calling such an act abnormal. As a step in the direction of not allowing our private ideological beliefs to seduce us into believing that they constitute a scientific basis for classifying certain sexual acts as abnormal, I would suggest that we hesitate to label as abnormal any sexual act that can be found as an accepted act in another culture. By the same token, those sexual acts that we find to be unacceptable in all cultures may provide a starting point for a theory of psychological abnormality. The sadistic sexual murderer would be performing such a universally condemned sexual act. I know of no culture that would accept such an action. Even with this conception of normality, we must be careful not to assume that no new forms of sexual acts can be normal. But using such a cross-cultural basis prevents us from simply adopting our own society's view of sexual normality and endowing it with scientific validity. This approach is not without its problems, but it does at least demand evidence and reasoning before a particular act can be labeled abnormal. There may well be other scientific bases for defining a sexual act as abnormal, but until it is clearly established as such by scientific evidence and reasoning, we had better not use such labels freely if we are to avoid the politicization of therapy. If we wish, we can as private citizens still strongly condemn and put people in jail for many sexual acts our culture does not approve of. But that is different from saying that we can scientifically show that those people are "sick." Such people may simply be nonconformists, for whatever reason. For scientists or therapists to use the label "paraphilia" or "dysfunctional" for all sexual acts that are socially disapproved of or unusual is to undermine the scientific basis of their approach. I would suggest it is better to call such clients nonconformists and then search for scientific theories that can measure the "illness" component, if any, of their noncomformity. I do not go as far as Thomas Szasz did in calling mental illness a myth, for I do not reject the possibility of finding a scientific basis for defining abnormality

239 such as the one I suggest, that is, the inability to perform in an acceptable fashion in any type of known society. But I do agree with Szasz that a great many of the acts we today label as abnormal are simply acts of nonconformity that happen to upset other people (Szasz, 1974). A therapist who labels his or her client as a paraphiliac or as dysfunctional is promoting a desire for a "cure." Few clients would want to maintain a paraphilia or a dysfunction. Calling the client a nonconformist opens up more clearly the possibility of not changing. The therapist could try to give insight into the range of choices that are open and also help the client understand the societal basis of the conformity desire. Such an approach might not satisfy people's desire to condemn what they disapprove of, but would it not be a more objective form of therapy? Much of the same politicization of sexuality occurs in our reactions to erotica. There, too, the terms "abnormal" and "sick" are commonly used for those acts that are unpopular in some group. This radical feminist distinction between erotica and pornography is more a private moral judgment of what one likes than a scientific distinction. Pornography has become a "bad" word, just like fornication and adultery. Social scientists have stopped using words like fornication and adultery because of their moral implications and have instead spoken of premarital intercourse and extramarital intercourse in order to minimize the intrusion of private moral biases. Many of the scientific researchers on erotica have done the same and are not using the term pornography because it implies only "bad" erotica to some people, such as the radical feminists. Instead, many researchers have elected to use the word erotica for all materials designed to arouse one sexually. Individual persons can express any private judgment about which forms of erotica they personally prefer or condemn because they judge it to be subordinating to women, or not gender equal in the relationship portrayed, or just plain obnoxious. But such subjective distinctions do not serve as a scientific basis for classifying erotica. There is much misinformation on erotica because of the strong emotions associated with it. The amount of violence in X-rated films has been exaggerated by some. For example, a recent analysis of 650 X-rated videotapes found that only 10% could be classified as showing "deviational sadistic, violent and victimized sex" (Rimmer, 1984). In another recent study, it was reported that films rated PG and R have many more murders and rapes than do X-rated films (Radecki, 1984). My cross-cultural analysis indi-

240

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

cates that attitudes favorable to gender equality go with an acceptance of a wide range of erotica. My analysis further indicates that even the rate of nonsexual violence is not a good predictor of rape rates in the United States and in other cultures. We need careful and not cavalier judgments in this area if we are to be scientifically informed. We need to be aware of the possible substitution of private ideological judgments of "abnormality" for scientific judgments of the nature of erotica. This analysis of erotica is developed much further in my recent book (Reiss, 1986, chap. 7). My point throughout this discussion of erotica, homosexuality, and premature ejaculation has been that sexuality is linked with the strong emotional ideologies of a society. We need to distinguish our private judgments from our scientific judgments. The scientific explanations can act as a clarification of our private judgments, if people make the effort to become aware of them. THE OVERALL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY My explanation of sexuality began with the assertion that our ability to participate in sexual relationships is basically a social product that is learned much as we learn how to develop friendship and love relationships. This is not to deny that biological or psychological factors are relevant. They are surely relevant if you ask questions focusing upon psychological and biological systems. But I am writing as a sociologist and I pose my questions in terms of how we can explain similarities and differences among human societies. On such questions I believe sociological theory can provide the answers better than can any other discipline. My own approach has particularly emphasized comparative sociology, which in my judgment is very similar to cultural anthropology. Sexuality is everywhere viewed as important because of its social bonding power. This ability is based predominantly on the physical pleasure and self-disclosure components that at least to some degree most often accompany sexual acts. It is such bonding that is encouraged by societies in relationships such as marriage that the society wishes to support. In this sense, sexual bonding promotes the formation of kinship ties and helps form the gender role concepts of a society. All societies have customs that place boundary mechanisms around important relationships such as sexual relations in marriage. This is accomplished by means of jealousy norms that are taught to group members. The more powerful members seek to maximize their control of that which is important in their group. Hence, the more powerful one gender is over the other, the

more likely it is that those persons also possess greater sexual rights and privileges. Our sexual ideologies support as "natural" those sexual customs that embody the society's ideological views concerning our fundamental human nature and condemn as "unnatural" those sexual customs that do not conform to these beliefs. A scientific theory is expected to develop verifiable indices of abnormality and not simply to accept the popular views concerning abnormal behavior or attitudes. One fundamental basis of our personal ideological judgment seems to be whether it is felt that the sexual practice in question will support or harm our kinship and gender systems. Note that this social opinion may be factually incorrect. For example, many Westerners would say that homosexuality must be competitive with heterosexuality-a person pursues either one or the other. Not only is this a stereotype of our own sexual behavior, but the Sambia and other similar cultures illustrate how a society may judge homosexual behavior to be essential to the creation of heterosexual behavior. One way to judge the worth of a scientific theory of sexuality is the degree to which it extends our vision beyond the cultural blinders we are each given by our society. I have noted above that the three specific parts of a social system that are always linked to sexuality are marital jealousy, gender role power, and concepts of normality. More generally, these three linkage areas are located in the social structures of kinship, power, and ideology. Changes in sexual customs would occur to the extent that these areas were affected. Clearly, our economic, political, religious, and family institutions are involved in any such changes. Perhaps the economic system is more flexibile than the others mentioned, because it is designed more for pragmatic subsistence outcomes than for moral guidance. But all institutions have a possible role in social change, and their causal influence should not be prejudged. The causal directions may well work two ways, with sexual customs on occasion initiating change in basic institutional areas. To illustrate, the greater sexual activity by young people in the 1965-75 decade was, I believe, one major cause of the change in the political acceptability of contraception and abortion services for young people. In my book I have devised 25 specific propositions that afford a predictive basis for understanding social change and the precise ways in which sexuality may be linked to kinship, power, and ideological structures in particular types of societies (Reiss, 1986). These propositions predict

241

SEXUALITY FIG.

1. SOCIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Source: Reiss, 1986: 214. Reprinted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

the conditions under which certain variations in the linkages of sexuality to the three key areas of the social structure would occur. I have referred to a goodly number of them informally in this paper. Figure 1 further illustrates the basic theoretical ideas I have been addressing. Note that the causal direction as indicated in this diagram goes two ways and involves causal relationships among the variables on each of the concentric circles as well as between the various factors on different concentric circles. One starts with sexual behavior at the center of the diagram and notes that it leads to the outcomes of "sexual importance" and "sexual bonding." These in turn are causally related to the linkages to kinship, power, and ideology and to the creation of sexual scripts, noted in the next concentric circle. Finally, at the outer circle are the social institutions that are both shaped by these other factors and that in turn shape them. This diagram is simply a

graphic version of the general way these various factors relate to each other. It is no substitute for the specific propositions I have formulated that explain societal variations in detail. Rather, this diagram illustrates the logical foundation for my sociological theory of human sexuality. The empirical foundation for the basic logic and the specific propositions that explain similarity and variation in sexual customs are surely not complete. I have discussed some of the evidence in this paper, and much more is contained in my book. Many concepts require better measurement and further clarification. This is particularly true for the crucial concept of power in relation to sexuality. Evidence on several of the variables in my propositions is yet to be gathered. At this point, parts of the theory rest on its logical and reasoning foundations. This article puts forth the overall logical conception of my explanation of sexuality as it currently stands.

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

242

Perhaps of greatest importance, this theory allows us to answer questions that prior approaches could not adequately handle. Those fundamental questions, concerning the explanation of why various groups differ or are alike in their sexual customs, are important to us both as individuals and as social scientists. In this new sociological explanation, I am not obliged to nor limited by the belief systems of older theories, even though I do not totally reject everything they assert. This is a fresh start and one that is rooted predominantly in the assumptions of sociology. As we utilize this explanation, we will have more to share with scientists in biology and psychology who have for a longer period of time been working on explanations of human sexuality that are relevant to the type of questions they pose concerning personality and biological systems. Of course, interrelationships are possible among disciplines. But sociology is a young science, and for now I believe it will yield the greatest scientific understanding if we nurture it separately and thereby develop its ability to explain the place of the social system in our sexual lives.

REFERENCES Berndt, Ronald, and Catherine Berndt. 1951. Sexual Behavior in Western Arnhem Land. New York: Viking Fund. Blumstein, Philip, and Pepper Schwartz. 1983. American Couples. New York: Morrow. Christensen, Harold T. 1962. "Value behavior discrepancies regarding premarital coitus in three Western cultures." American Sociological Review 27: 66-74. Davenport, William. 1965. "Sexual patterns and their regulation in a society of the South West Pacific." Chap. 8 in Frank A. Beach (ed.), Sex and Behavior. New York: John Wiley. Delamater, John, and Patricia MacCorquodale. 1979. Premarital Sexuality: Attitudes, Relationships, Behavior. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Ehrmann, Winston W. 1959. Premarital Dating Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gagnon, John H., and William Simon. 1973. Sexual Conduct. Chicago: Aldine. Goldfoot, David A., K. Wallen, D. A. Neff, M. C. McBriar, and R. W. Goy. 1984. "Social influences upon the display of sexually dimorphic behavior in rhesus monkeys: Isosexual rearing." Archives of Sexual Behavior 13: 395-412.

Gorer, Geoffrey. 1967. Himalayan Village: An Account of the Lepchas of Sikkim (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Herdt, Gilbert. 1981. Guardians of the Flutes: Idioms of Masculinity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Levy, Robert I. 1973. Tahitians: Mind and Experience in the Society Islands. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lottes, Ilsa. 1985. "The use of cluster analysis to determine belief patterns." Journal of Sex Research 21: 405-421. Masters, William H., and Virginia F. Johnson. 1966. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown. Masters, William H., and Virginia F. Johnson. 1970. Human Sexual Inadequacy. Boston: Little, Brown. Murdock, George P., and Douglas R. White. 1969. "Standard Cross Cultural Sample." Ethnology 8: 329-369. O'Kelly, Charlotte G. 1980. Women and Men in Society. New York: D. Van Nostrand. Radecki, Thomas. 1984. Quoted in "Pornography: Love or death?" Film Comment 20 (November/ December): 43-45. Reiss, Ira L. 1960. Premarital Sexual Standards in America. New York: Free Press. Reiss, Ira L. 1967. The Social Context of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reiss, Ira L. 1986. Journey into Sexuality: An Exploratory Voyage. New York: Prentice-Hall. Reiss, Ira L., Ronald E. Anderson, and G. C. Sponaugle. 1980. "A multivariate model of the determinants of extramarital sexual permissiveness." Journal of Marriage and the Family 42: 395-411. Reiss, Ira L., and Brent C. Miller. 1979. "Heterosexual permissiveness: A theoretical analysis." Chap. 4 in Wesley Burr, Reuben Hill, F. Ivan Nye and Ira L. Reiss (eds.), Contemporary Theories about the Family (Vol. 1). New York: Free Press. Rimmer, Robert H. 1984. The X-Rated Videotape Guide. New York: Arlington House. Sanders, Irwin T. (ed.). 1956. Societies around the world. New York: Dryden. Simon, William, and John H. Gagnon. 1984. "Sexual scripts: Permanence and change." Society 22 (November /December): 53-60. Singer, Barry. 1985. "A comparison of evolutionary and environmental theories of erotic response (Part 1): Structural features." Journal of Sex Research 21: 229-257. Stacey, Judith. 1983. Patriarchy and Socialist Revolution in China. Berkeley: University of California Press. Szasz, Thomas. 1974. The Myth of Mental Illness (rev. ed.). New York: Harper and Row.