The first reading about sexual deviances was a very interesting one. The beginning of the article deals with the idea that colonial America stressed the importance of sex in marriage and in marriage only. They seemed to believe that it was ok to have sexual pleasure, and it was necessary to have sex period –and thus because sex was necessary for procreation, having children and sex for enjoyment went hand in hand. Sex outside of the marriage or before the marriage was not acceptable behavior. These acts included fornication, masturbation, sodomy, and buggery to name a few. Sex was an act to be shared by a man and his wife in the marriage bed. Children were taught and ingrained from a young age to believe that sex had its purpose to procreate, and anything outside of this was acceptable. Children were a desirable product of sex and were needed to keep a family going. Seemingly it was okay to have sexual desire, as long as it was channeled towards the marriage partner for the purpose of procreation. The Puritans in particular taught to channel sexual energy towards love for God and save just a little for marriage. They believed sex was virtually unclean and only acceptable to keep generations alive. Of course the Puritan approach was very much more conservative than in other areas. In the colonies in general, sexuality outside of marriage was punishable by execution, whipping or fines. Various standards existed for men and woman, race, and social standing, in terms of punishment. Kids were taught from a young age about sexuality. Many shared bedrooms or even beds with parents and thus witnessed sex first hand. Others were taught about it in church and by their parents. Obviously they knew that sex only had one purpose and was never to be experimented with. Colonial houses afforded little privacy to couples, thus almost anyone could here or see a couple “in the act.” In addition, as stated above, sexual promiscuity had heavy consequences for the parties involved. Sex outside of marriage, bastardy, and adultery were not tolerated. Though it seemed that if the “criminals” accepted the terms of their punishment and repented they were seamlessly reintegrated back into society. For example, Samuel Terry of Springfield who was a repeat sexual offender and yet was allowed to be a town constable. Similarly, couples who were courting with permission of the parents and got pregnant were generally forgiven if they repented, accepted punishment and married. The two main goals of regulating sexual deviance were to help enforce the system of marital, reproductive sexuality and to maintain white dominance over blacks. D'Emilio states that the court, church and community taught the socialization of youths and urged them to consider the appropriate place for sex -in marriage for children.

This reading was very interesting. It gave me a look at sexual life in Colonial American like I had never thought of it before. It certainly dispelled previous notions that all colonists were moral conservatives. To me it seems that peoples cravings were no different, but that moral standards stopped many from acting on such urges, especially with threat of punishment. I think the reading, while interesting, was sometimes hard to follow. It seems as if there were a lot of stories and random things thrown in full of repetition. The point is simple; sex was for marriage and marriage only otherwise there were consequences. Several pages were not needed to make this point. People were integrated into families to support each other economically. Thus children were a subset of this, and necessary to keep the family alive.

The second reading also offered an interesting view point on the development of gay society in our culture. D'Emilio believes that the rise of capitalism has created a society in which people are able to pursue their economic goals independent of a family and thus can pursue sexual goals independent of necessity. This in turn has propagated a culture in which people can engage in their homosexual urges and turn it into a lifestyle. Nuclear families are no longer needed as a basis for interdependence. People had to marry and have children because children were additional workers for the farm where food and clothing was produced. Children also cared for parents in their old age. When capitalism emerged, people began to leave the home to earn wages which wa in turn used to purchase food and clothing. Not as many things were made in the home anymore. He claims homosexual urges always existed, and documented several sources which confirmed these lewd findings in colonial times, but social construct didn’t allow for them to make a lifestyle of it. They didn't have the "social space" if you will to fully act on these desires. People needed the nuclear family and procreation to survive. It wasn’t until present times and the emergence of capitalism that people could pursue gains independently and support themselves. They could then also engage in sexual activity without the aim of procreation. A certain sexual identity was created that didn’t exist prior. Sex and economic self sufficiency are now able to travel in two separate spheres, and aren't reliant on one another. Thus he argues that just these urges existed, but not homosexuality as a lifestyle – not until present times. He claims that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory because capitalism is the force that has essentially weakened the bonds of the family economically (people no longer need the family to produce food to survive). At the same time he claims that the family creates feelings of love and affection that can't be found elsewhere (money doesn't satisfy emotions). The family is essentially a unit for support in the area of love.

This is an interesting argument but I’m not sure I buy it. I agree that capitalism certainly allowed for more and more people to live without marrying but I think homosexuality is homosexuality. If you had those urges in 1700 but didn’t act on them because society mandated that it was wrong, it is no different than today. Now though, it is socially acceptable to be gay and we can admit to it in the sense that we can live without a domestic partner. The author also states that the population of gays and lesbians has grown because of an example set. While this may be true in some respects, I’m more inclined to believe that more and more people are not inhibited from “coming out of the closet” so to speak because of the changing landscape of social stigmas. A gay individual, while perhaps not being able to recognize his/her differences in sexuality, would be wary to act upon his/her urges for fear of punishment, banishment, and inability to make a living. Now these social pressures don’t exist and thus more and more individuals identify themselves as gay. It’s the same idea of as the higher instances of divorce. There are more divorces, I believe, because it’s morally/socially acceptable to do so and woman can survive without the income of the man. Change has allowed for certain things to become more acceptable and thus more prevalent. The author doesn't really make clear what he's basing his argument on. While yes I would agree that there are exponentially more gay and lesbian people today, I think that is because we recognize it as a life style. If this is what D'Emilio is saying than I think he might be correct, but to say that less gay and lesbians existed in the 18th century for example is a statement that can't really be defended. There are no facts to support either argument -that there were less gays OR that there were the same amount but many didn't recognize their different feelings and act on them.