Discussions on Everyday Sexualizing

Here is a mapping of the conversations students had on the discussion board based on Linda Van
Leuven's (guest speaker) comments regarding everyday sexualizing.

Linda's approach to sexuality - Jessica 23:04:45 2/16/99 (3)
          Re: Linda's approach to sexuality - Justin 23:14:33 2/25/99 (0)
          Re: Linda's approach to sexuality - Melissa 20:47:15 2/19/99 (1)
             Yes, Linda... - Minnie00:10:24 2/22/99 (0)

First Posting:

Posted by Jessica on February 16, 1999 at 23:04:45:

I found Linda to be very interesting, lively, and enthusiastic about her work. What Linda stressed in her lecture
was that her approach to sexuality does differ from the essays and narratives we have read thus far including
McIntosh, Whitman and Troiden. Sociologists usually examine society with an end-point perspective. Linda on
the other hand looks at sexuality as an accomplishment, not something that just happens. Linda looks at the
process by which people participate in creating sexuality, not just how people are affected by sexuality. This
interactional approach to analyzing how people create sexuality gives insight to why people interact with each
other in a sexual manner. Linda's lecture, although very interesting didn't seem like new news to me. I have
always been aware that sexualized conversation is an active participatory process whereby people participate
for different reasons and under different pressumptions at times. I have participated in sexualizing conversation
with men and women for various reasons whether its to create a bond, send a vibe, or start a conversation.
Nonetheless I thoroughly enjoyed Linda and her research.

Follow Ups:

     Re: Linda's approach to sexuality Justin 23:14:33 2/25/99 (0)
     Re: Linda's approach to sexuality Melissa 20:47:15 2/19/99 (1)
          Yes, Linda... Minnie 00:10:24 2/22/99 (0)

Follow Ups of the First Posting:

Posted by Justin on February 25, 1999 at 23:14:33:

In Reply to: Linda's approach to sexuality posted by Jessica on February 16, 1999 at 23:04:45:

Linda Linda Linda:

O.K., I can see that many saw Linda's article as less than ground breaking because pretty much ever since
stand-up comics came into being and especially since Three's Company hit the tube, sexual innuendo and
sexualization has been no stranger to Americans. However, I would like to share some insight into how Linda's
presentation helped clarify things for me.

As a gay man, I have always been aware of three things. First, the constant sexualizing that heterosexual
men among other men. Second, the constant sexualizing that heterosexual women to other men. Third, the
increasing reduction of straight men in my life until now I have no heterosexual male friends. Suddenly, it all
made sense.

I know that we all learned from sex-ed that beginning at the onset of puberty, boys think of sex a 16 million
times per minute and girls only 1 million times per minute and that this gradually levels off. If you ask young
men (15-30) whether they talk about sex or sexualize conversation with their friends, they will probably
respond with a simply "yeah," and think nothing much of it. However, I can tell you that it seems like there
is nothing else they can talk about in a social setting. Under highly structured and/or public settings and in
mixed sex company men can be made to maintain a discussion of an average of 15 minutes or so without
sexualizing. The point is that it is so much a part of their lives. From my experience with my male relatives
and their friends, at least 2/3rds of what they talk about when they talk about personal stuff is sexualized
or explicitly about sex. And, it is not a series of monologues but rather a dialogue. A dialogue that a gay man
cannot honestly participate in at the same level.

When an openly gay man has friends, the sexualizing is reduced consciously and unconsciously until it begins
and then it can take one of three forms. First, the gay man plays lip-service and enacts a heterosexual male
role in the conversation. Second, the gay man can bring it to an end abruptly by explicitly mentioning his sexual
identity. Third, the gay man can participate sexualizing in a homosexual manner. The first two I think are the
most common and they both lead to an uncomfortable impasse as the sexualization eventually becomes abruptly
dropped. The third is very rare for obvious cultural reasons. I think that if men and women can have this perspective,
their perceptions of queers always flaunting it will become reduced.

More importantly, Linda showed us how important and essentialized heterosexualized conversation has
become. Gay men do not necessarily avoid sports bars because they don't like sports, its because in those
environments they have absolutely nothing to talk to the breeders about. This is an extreme example, but by
de-essentializing sexualization, we can see how pervasive heteronormativity is and how much we have to
accomplish to ameliorate stigmatism of sexual minorities. If straight men will not allow gay men to take part
in sexualizing conversation in a queer manner and if gay men are not brave enough to participate on equal footing
than a part of human interaction and bonding as important as the act itself is to human interaction and discourse is
left out of the loop. Obviously, if queers and straights cannot partake in sexualizing conversation, then each shall
remain a stranger to the other.

Importantly, heterosexuals have made much progress across the sexes when it comes to sexual play and
interaction while queers and straights have made very little. Linda showed us how important and fun and
common sexualization is. Therefore, she helped me to realize that I was not just crazy or hypersensitive or
heterophobic. It also demonstrated why gays must come out to both males and females because if not, they are
constantly letting people down by dropping the ball of sexualized discourse, or constantly on guard against a
misstep in a sexualized discourse or constantly trying to avoid entering areas of discourse that could lead to
sexualizing (that leaves a truly narrow conversational range at that). No wonder gays say they come out
because they are tired of lying, heterosexuals won't let them stay in the closet with integrity.

In conclusion, Linda's work was not brainiac stuff, but it was very enlightening and powerful if one uses her
perspective. Her work shows us an aspect of all of our lives that we take for granted and that was her point.
I think that I have segregated myself from heterosexual men because of my and their inability to communicate
broadly enough because we are unable to handle things when they become sexualized. My relationships with
straight men are all "professional" in that I enter them in a context specific setting and then when the
class/job/project is over, we don't talk again. I am not a loner or loser, I have plenty of queer and hetero-female
friends its just that with this social phenomenon in place, I am no longer worried about having a psychological
hang-up.

Therefore, I am signing on to the pro-Linda camp. I think that her work contributes to the study of social
phenomenon, has been understudied and is powerful because it affects everybody. The most powerful lesson
that I got from it was when I applied to my personal life. Perhaps others out there gained something or have a
powerful argument as to why they thought her work was less than informing????

--Justin

Posted by Melissa on February 19, 1999 at 20:47:15:

In Reply to: Linda's approach to sexuality posted by Jessica on February 16, 1999 at 23:04:45:

I agree with you. Linda is very interesting and funny, but her research was nothing new to me. I think that her
explanation of flirting, or sexualized conversation as she stated, was a lot more complex than it had to be. I
see sexualized conversation as something natural, because after all, we are all sexual creatures in search of
attention. Perhaps this opinion is just coming from my essentialist point of view.

Posted by Minnie on February 22, 1999 at 00:10:24:

In Reply to: Re: Linda's approach to sexuality posted by Melissa on February 19, 1999 at 20:47:15:

Yes, Linda

...certainly made it clear that sexuality is not only contained in sexual harrassment,
relationships, and desexualization. But I don't think Linda was trying to show merely that
people participate in sexualizing conversations. Of course we all know that. But in
those kinds of coversations, have you ever thought to yourself at the moment, "I am doing
my sexuality through this conversation with so and so..." ? I don't think any of us
think of it that way. We just say what we say without really thinking about it.
From Linda's experiment, I learned that people express their sexualities in the most
subtlest ways, without actually knowing it. Now that Linda has analyzed sexualized
conversations, we can say that those "screw" talks are forms of sexual expression but
I don't think people normally think of it in those terms.

Linda also emphasized that sexuality can involve action so that it is expressed.
Before, I never really thought that sexuality is something that is performed
or shown at a particular moment. I guess I just thought it was just... just there,
you know? OR, I figured if someone was to "express" their sexuality, it would be obvious
and defined (like her example of a gay person displaying his sexuality by sticking
a rainbow colored flag out on his front yard..). But Linda's analysis reveals that
it can be ambiguous, therefore, problematic.

So~ My point is that we all know that we participate in sexualizing conversations-
sexual jokes, flirtatious comments, whatever. But I think Linda made me realize that
these sexual talks are not just about sex. They are actions that derive from
a part of all human beings called sexuality.