Identity and Sexuality in the Anglo-American Colonies
Identity and Sexuality in the Anglo-American Colonies
In this week’s Peiss readings we get some concrete facts and history to support what Foucault had mentioned in The History of Sexuality – the fact that sexual abnormality was often tolerated by villagers/townspeople during the Puritan era, even though legal codes created by the religious and political leaders suggested otherwise (as we can see, in the 17th century in Massachusetts, sexual crimes were often subject to capital punishment if prosecuted). However, what was interesting to me was the lack of identities based in sexuality. Not only did the townspeople who observed life-long tendencies towards so-called sins (of a sexual nature) not form ideas about sexual identity, neither did those who felt the temptation towards and sometimes acted on these sins (as far as we know). The lack of identities based in sexuality is not surprising, as there was only one sexual identity that wasn’t sinful – the identity characterized by sex between a married man and women. However, what was surprising was the legal treatment of so-called abnormal sexual practices as acts, and not desires, that reinforced the lack of sexual identities. The essay by Godbeer suggests an explanation for this, quoting religious leaders who assert that these sinful desires and temptations are present in everyone. Yet this was unsatisfying for me. Why would sexual sins be committed consistently by certain people and not at all by others, rather than only occasionally, by different people in moments of weakness? The answer that these people are inherently weaker and more prone to act on their temptations to sin is not satisfactory, since I’m sure there were plenty of people who did not commit sexual sins but did commit other sins. Therefore, the classification of sexual sins as acts and not desires, is because religious leaders were unable to ask these questions and change their thinking even when they saw evidence such as the actions of Nicholas Sessions. Their inability to ask these questions, change their thinking, I would think results from their inability to, as Joe said: “show that a “problem” existed within “us”—the colonial society at large”.
In the introduction to Chapter 3, Peiss asserts the effects that laws regulating sexuality had in society – one of which, “defining the terms of racial slavery” has to do with the “us” versus “them” mentality. She also asserts that “laws about sexual conduct upheld patriarchal authority.” While the “us” versus “them” mentality is evident in the persecution of Hector in The Scarlet Letter, her persecution is also evidence of the patriarchal society. As child-bearers, often the evidence of a woman’s supposed crime (sex outside of marriage) is unconcealable, so one such transgression can lead to her prosecution, while men could commit the same sin many times over without ever facing the same consequences of public scorn and alienation. In ways, this is not so different from contemporary society, where (at least outside of marriage) men are lauded for having many sexual partners, while women who engage in such practices are labeled with derogatory words such a “slut”.
Tags: desire, identity, patriarchal, Puritans, sexual regulation
