Sexuality and American Culture

Though the restrictions on sexuality seems to have lessened in the 1920s in America, not all parts of the world are as open about the same topic. The account of a Filipino student's impressions of America is one example of this. He sees American women acting with a degree of freedom regarding their sexuality almost unheard of back home. As a Filipina born in the Philippines and raised in a Philippine culture, I understand where he is coming from. In fact, until fairly recently, courtship was still necessary if a boy wanted to go out with a girl, and even today parents keep a very close eye on their children's love affairs. In my case, my parents said that if a boy expressed interest in me, he must go to the house and ask my parents' permission to date me. Intimacy in public, as the student described, is still too much and is not totally accepted, even if it is just a hug and a kiss on the cheek. I remember the other day when I was watching the Philippine version of Family Feud with my mom, and the host hugged and kissed the women like what the host of the US version does. My mom turned to me and commented how the women aren't really comfortable with those actions like they would be if they were in the States. This is just one example of how views of sexuality can vary not just by the time period one lives in, but also the location of that person.

Documents 2 and 3 were intriguing because they explore reasons why young women would have so-called lax morals. The document on petting discusses peer pressure, which is still prevalent today. Many of these young women know that it's wrong, but they do it anyway; in other words, "Oh, everybody's doing 'it,' I should too." The other argument concerns "the movies' influence on sexual behavior," and how young women can be convinced to act immoral if they see it on the movie screen.  That too is another common argument today: the media is corrupting the minds of today's youth. Granted, today the focus is more on violence in movies, TV shows, video games, and other media, but this can, and does, also apply to sex.

To counter this corruption of youth in the 1930s, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America has written up a set of code explicitly stating what can and can't be shown on the movie screen with regard to sex. By limiting what can be shown on screen, the MPPDA has constructed what is proper sexual behavior for the masses. This is yet another example of how language is used to control sexuality.

Another use of language to define what is right or wrong sexually is, oddly enough, the defining of the word "heterosexuality." That should not be so much of a surprise, since it has already been argued that the word "homosexuality" was invented to categorize certain characteristics and behaviors. In line with the social constructionist theory, Katz argues that, though heterosexuality has always existed, it is only with the invention of the word that a heterosexual identity can be defined. Yet, even the term "heterosexuality" did not define the norm at first. It was only when the division between hetero and homo was established that heterosexuality became a recognized part of middle-class life.

Finally, my brief impressions of Lolita. I found it interesting that, despite Humbert's desire for young "nymphets," he believes that his desires are wrong and immoral. This falls in line with what people were taught around the 1930s and 40s; sex outside procreation is wrong, and anyone who has sex for pleasure, especially if it is not with another adult woman, is sexually depraved. And, until Lolita starts to seduce him near the end of Part One, Humbert also thinks that all children are pure and moral, another assumption that has come from the medical community back in the late 19th century. And yet, he realizes that psychiatry is a scam early on in the novel and uses his cunning to trick the psychiatrists into diagnosing him with various "illnesses," including "potentially homosexual" and "totally impotent." But like homosexuality, Humbert's longing for young girls is not necessarily an illness. Do I still think it's wrong? Yes, if only because it is very difficult to separate myself from the social norm that says that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is wrong. But I feel that the way Humbert's obsession with Lolita unfolds can apply to different kinds of sexual relationships.