Chicana/o-Latina/o Gender & Sexuality

I just read Elaine Tyler Mae's "Homeward Bound" for the second time. In this essay she critiques the oppression of gender and sexuality in "white" culture of the 1950s. In beginning her argument, she references Vice President Nixon's "kitchen debate" where he argues the existence of universal gender and sexual roles for women (although he is clearly referencing the white, suburban, wife). As I would agree with many of Juarez and Kerl's critiques of outlined scholarship, I feel many examples are assuming an essentialized sexuality while not ALWAYS referencing "white" sexuality. This conversation has me in very murky waters. I am thinking of the film Mona Lisa Smile for some reason right now. I think this film argues against the right (White) way to be sexual and at the same time argues that a white oppression of sexuality does exist. I haven't seen it since the theater, but I think I remember a scene where Julia Styles is choosing to stay in the home and Julia Roberts (??) can't really grasp why she would want to subscribe to these roles when she has the chance to break free. At this point, both gain agency in the structures surrounding sexuality.

In another arena entirely, I can't get over Juarez and Kern's theme of "old world/new world" and "traditional" sexuality. I feel what this work, as well as much of the work that is being critiqued within it, is missing intersectionality. This argument that Chicana/o is given such sexual definitions and "white" should be recognized as just as oppressive seems to miss all complexities. What about historical contexts? Religion? Catholicism influence? Protestant influence? La Chingada/La Virgen? I think the best take home message here is essentialism regarding sexuality.

I didn't follow the parameters of the prompt completely, but isn't essentialism essentially parameters in itself?

Posted by rusco001 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

I have strong feelings about this topic, although my personal experience with it is as unusual as it is specific. As a sex educator and seller of sex toys for the Smitten Kitten, Minneapolis' feminist own/run sex toy store, I have helped hundreds and hundreds of people pick out their sex toys, and have heard many tales of sexuality along the way. While I have helped people of all gender identifications, sexual orientations, ages, lifestyles, and races, since Minnesota is predominantly white, the majority of customers who come into the store (we ship online to places all over, especially where sex toys are hard to come by, places like the deep south amongst others) are white. And I have encountered a great many white women who are repressed in one or several ways, and it is not hard to see how U.S. culture has helped to foster that repression. Even Bill Clinton, who was arguably the most socially progressive President that America has known, fired Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders for suggesting that masturbation is something that should be taught to teenagers to prevent pregnancy, STIs, and AIDS specifically. Sexual education in this country (what little there is) is far from comprehensive (even the sex ed that isn't abstinence only), is not engaging for young people, and leaves them mystified about their own bodies and what outcomes, both positive and negative, can come from leading a sexually active life. For many people walking into a sex toy store, even one that is clean, bright, and woman friendly, is a big step, but once they realize that the people who work there are trained to educate them, they feel substantially less nervous and gradually become more comfortable. Juarez and Kerl's article didn't really change my mind, however I never saw Latina/o culture as being inherently more repressive towards women's sexuality than white culture in the first place. But in considering that question, I basically reaffirmed my belief that all it takes to be sexually "liberated" is to receive comprehensive sex education and to have the belief that sex is not inherently wrong or sinful.

Posted by nowak039 at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I have experienced this repression before in a previous relationship I had. I was dating a guy that assumed that if him and I were together when I finished school I would take care of the house, have kids, and take care of him. The reading by Juarez and Kerl states that, "It is assumed that men go out to work and provide economic support in return for housekeeping, child-rearing and sexual availability and they are active and dominant, while women are relatively passive and submissive, having been led to expect men to know best how to satisfy them." (pg.10) The fact that he thought this way made it really hard for me to imagine myself with him; why am I going to school if my job will be taking care of him? What if I don't want to do what he expects of me? He also was very selfish while having sex; it was only important for him to enjoy it and he was surprised and upset when I confronted him about it. These issues have definitely affected me, but I am also fortunate because I have not been brought up with a family with similar views. While some of culture agrees with the "traditional" view of women's roles, not all do. Obviously, the relationship didn't work out, and this was the main reason for the breakup. I just couldn't go on with the relationship knowing that our views on what our "ideal future" would be like were so different. (Along with the fact that he was an ass).

Posted by mccr0146 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

**Post Response under Category 4**

Juarez and Kerl seem to be arguing that Anglo/white culture is also repressive toward women's sexuality but it is just not categorized as such. How have you experienced this to be TRUE? Why is there such a lack of recognition of the "traditional" for Anglo/white women to have to adhere? Does Juarez and Kerl's article make you reconsider your own thoughts on Latina/o cultures as inherently repressive toward women's sexuality? Include any examples from life or readings you see as relevant.

Posted by Kandace Creel Falcon at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)