Response to John D'Emilio

The first piece by John D'Emilio is entitled "Family Life and the Regulation of Deviance." It focuses on the subject of sexuality in colonial America. D'Emilio works to refine the stereotypical view of colonists as prudish and anti-sexual. He states that "an accurate portrayal of sexuality in the colonial era both incorporates and challenges the puritanical stereotype" (15). "Early Americans payed close attention to sexual behaviors of individuals, not in order to squelch sexual expression, but rather to channel it into what they considered to be its proper setting and purpose. This setting and purpose was as a duty and joy within marriage, and for the purpose of procreation" (16).

"The Puritan approach to sexual desire was to socialize children to channel sexual desire toward marriage. For colonial America the organizing principle of sexual relations was reproduction" (16). Children learned early on that sexual behaviors ought to be limited to marriage. "The harsh language directed at those who defied this model, gave the children one kind of moral lesson" (17). As it can clearly be seen the ideal of sexuality in colonial America was that of marriage. Puritans were not anti-sexual as they often are stereotyped as. However, sexual behavior was only to be experience through marriage, and nothing else was acceptable.

"Children learned about sexuality from two primary sources. They were observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and church" (16). "Children learned about sex in the home. The small size of colonial dwellings allowed children to see and hear sexual activity between adults" (17). "These observations implemented the lesson that sexual activity was restricted to marriage. Formal moral teaching confimed the children's observations. Clergy and lawmakers warned that sexual behavior was not meant for enjoyment but was meant for procreation" (18).

Colonial society dealt with sexual "deviance" in various ways. "Fornication carried heavy penalties, including fines, whipping, or both. Throughout New England, a fine of nine lashes awaited both parents of a child born to soon after marriage" (22). "Through confession and repentance, colonial society offered a means to clear the stigma associated with premarital pregnancy" (23). "It was very common for lawmakers to sentence offenders to some type of public humiliation, such as whipping at the post or stting in the stocks" (27). "The regulation of deviance served the larger function of reminding the community that sexuality belonged within marriage for the purpose of producing legitimate children" (27). "The other main goal of regulating sexual deviance was to maintain white dominance over blacks" (37).

The second piece by John D'Emilio is entitled "Capitalism and Gay Identity." D'Emilio states that "the expansion of capital and the spread of wage labor have effected a profound transformation in the structures and functions of the nuclear family, the ideology of family life, and the meaning of heterosexual relationships" (102). He states "that is these changes in the family that are most directly linked to the appearance of a collective gay life" (102). "As wage labor spread and production became socialized, it became possible to release sexuality from the "imperative" to procreate" (104). "Individuals who made there living through wage labor, instead of through an interdependent family, were now able to let their homosexual desires turn into a peronal identity. This identity was based on their ability to stay outside the traditional heterosexual family" (105).

D'Emilio makes an argument that the relationship between capitalism and family is contradictory. "On one hand, capitalism (as mentioned above) has undermined the material basis of the nuclear family by taking away the economis functions that cemented the ties between family members. On the other hand the ideology of capitalist society has enshrined the family as the source of love, affection, and emotional security" (108). As one can see there is an evident contradiction between capitalism and family.

D'Emilio also discusses the relationship between capitalism and gay identity. "Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as the central component of some people's lives. Capitalism has lead to the separation of sexuality from procreation" (110). "Gay individuals embody the potential of this split, since the gay relationships stand entirely outside a procreative framework" (110). I believe that D'Emilio's argument does have some credence, as without the separation of sexuality and procreativity, gay couples would be seen as impossible since they do not have the ability to procreate. So in that sense I do agree with his argument.