Few topics evoke so much anxiety and pleasure, pain and hope, discussion and silence as sexuality. Throughout the Christian era it has been a major moral preoccupation. Since the eighteenth century it has also been the focus of 'scientific' exploration and political activity. But, despite this obsessive concern, we are still as baffled as our predecessors about the 'true' meaning of sex. In this book Jeffrey Weeks unravels the dense web of historical, theoretical and political forces that have culminated in (...) the contemporary crisis of sexual meanings and values. The book begins with a powerful evocation of our present discontents and their potent signs: the rise of the New Right, the retreat of progressive forces and a wave of moral panics around sex. It argues that this crisis is rooted in a tradition which has ascribed an inflated importance to sexuality, whilst claiming a privileged access to truth. The author then examines radical debates of recent years, and asks whether they contain the potentiality for taking us beyond the existing boundaries of sexuality. From this analysis emerges a controversial 'radical pluralist' approach to sexuality built on an acceptance of diversity and choice. By linking our present discontents to a clear understanding of the past, Jeffrey Weeks presents a rational, optimistic and challenging vision of a realizable future. (shrink)

continue to have armies, as I suspect we will for some time to come, then they, too, must be fully integrated, as well as our national guard, our state troopers, our local sheriffs' offices, our district attorneys' offices, our state prosecuting attorneys'  ...

What is the relationship between gender and sexuality? Some theories claim that they are two distinct systems of stratification, whereas others claim that they are bound tightly together. By looking at medical opinion on homosexuality in men and women from 1900 to 1950, this article examines the relationship between sexuality and gender. Interpretive analysis of articles on homosexuality appearing in medical journals during this time suggests that the relationship between sexuality and gender varies in historically and socially specific ways.

The authors argue that women's dependence on men plays a key role in muting challenges to gender inequality, and they explore that argument through an analysis of gender-related attitudes in five countries. Women's dependence at both the societal and the individual levels is associated with less egalitarian gender attitudes; such dependence especially affects women's attitudes, drawing them toward men's less egalitarian views. Societal-level dependence also strengthens the impact of individual-level dependence on egalitarianism. The authors conclude that women's dependence discourages egalitarian (...) gender attitudes, thus suppressing challenges to the gendered status quo and legitimating gender inequality. (shrink)

This article reevaluates research on gender differences in sexual attitudes, a literature characterized by misuse of attitude scales and misinterpretation of those gender differences that are obtained. A study by Hendrick, Hendrick, Slapion-Foote, and Foote is used to illustrate these pitfalls. The gender differences in sexual attitudes obtained in this study, characterized by Hendrick et al. as indicative of women's greater sexual conservatism, are interpreted here as reflections of the different social structural positions of women and men.