A history of sexuality and deviance

1. D' Emilio argues that the Puritans approach to sexual desire is not exactly the image that it is viewed as in today's society. He proves that although they garnered harsh laws and regulation of sexual behavior, this in no way meant that there were less instances of sexual encounters and acts of deviance. Since the family was the sole economic unit in colonial times, its stability and continuation was of utmost importance, making clear why the regulation of sexual behavior was such a public endeavor. Another prevalent attitude toward sexual deviance in colonial times was the reitegration of offenders into society after punishment.
The colonial approach to sexuality was the channeling of sexuality and desire to be appropriate only within the state of marriage and for the purpose of procreation. Through the observation of adult sexual behavior and church and state teachings and laws, children learned this to be true. Although outside of wedlock sexual behavior was not seen as acceptable, instances sodomy, buggery, adultery, and rape nontheless occured with seemingly relative frequency and were publicly dealt with.
The punishments for sexual deviance throughout the colonies took similar forms; the severity of punishment depending on the nature of the offense, gender, race, and social status of the offender. Punishment of a sexual offense could include whipping, fines, removal from occupation, public apalogy, or even the death penalty. The seriousness of the offense of sex out of wedlock varied. If the couple was engaged or was able to be married, then the offense was not taken seriously. In the case of adultery, women were more often punished than men because it was easier to identitfy their participation in the act for obvious reasons. Punishment for rape of a married woman or a man's daughter might result in the death penalty, unless the woman was not married, in which case the act might not even be viewed as rape. Adultery was punishable through whipping the women and the fining of men. Acts such as sodomy were punished also through these methods, and the reintegration into society as a trustworthy person was not unattainable. The punishments for white men who raped black women and black men who had sexual relations with white women were very different, revealing the racist attitudes already rising within the colonies. While a black man was often castrated for such an act, it became increasingly socially acceptable for a white male to rape a black servant or slave.

2. D'Emilio's argues that the structure of captalistic society and economy by nature breaks down the components that make family living neccessary and provides the ability for autonomous living. But, at the same time, capitalism needs workers for its labor force, and so perpetuates the attitudes of homophobia and heterosexism to force people into families and continue procreation.
His argument about gay identity and capitalism stems from this same idea that capitalism has allowed an increasingly autonomous life to be possible. He argues that unlike many gay rights activists during the sixties held, he believes that gays and lesbians have not always existed and will not neccessarily always exist, but are a direct result of capitalism. He gives the example that in colonial times, there was certainly homosexual activity, but no one of that time would have openly or secretly professed themselves to be of a gay identity. He argues that there was no "social space" for such a concept during that time period. A person at this time could not exist outside the family unit because it was the only means of economic survival. D'Emilio arguest that once this began to change, people became able to identitfy themselves through their differing sexual desires.
I think his argument is incredibly interesting and innovative. It takes a completely different look at the creation of sexuality, and while defending homosexuality, denying its inherent existence within certain members of society. I am unsure whether I can entirely agree or disagree with his thesis, but I think he is right to say that capitalism is a great contributor to the rising flourishment of gay life and culture.