Literature suggests that social scientists have always attempted to address complex relationships between various attitudes of society while constructing the interrelated constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. This literature review focus on various perspectives of gender and sexuality in the context of different arenas of social groups. In this context, we start the review from university students. Sociologists have tried hard to explore what students perceive of ‘sexual activity’ when they talk about sexual process and sex partners. The definition of ‘having sex’ here is confined in a general manner that is shared by respondents and does not include the exclusive intercourse mechanism to be taken into account.
Research conducted by Trotter & Alderson (2007) presented a synopsis which consider those students who possessed varying attitudes in their perceptions of having sex, choosing sexual partners, and their personal experience with same and opposite sex partners. It was found that among students who participated mostly were university girls who defined sex not in terms of orgasm but what they focused upon were the scenarios and the circumstances behind orgasm leading to sexual behavior while determining the sex of the partner. The sexual experience questionnaire on one hand resulted in the notion that women were more specific in defining sexual encounters than men, while men only defined sexual process in terms of orgasm. On the other hand the findings sensed the prevalence of pessimism found in majority of the female sexual definition.
This pave way to the sociologists to seek detail about how females feel about the sexual process. Therefore, I would like to mention the work of Carr (2005) who performed research in defining how lay persons illuminate sex, gender, and conflation on the basis of tomboyism and lesbianism, particularly from a women’s narrative. This was to investigate the empirical relationship among women’s types to choose the reasoning behind choosing masculinity and rejecting femininity during childhood and adolescence (Carr, 2005). Tomboyish position was differentiated on the basis of normal and deviant attitude pertaining to heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. After discovering chi square tests and qualitative analyses of women’s discussions, it was discovered that a woman’s stage of the life cycle in context with gender and sexual status influences distinct merging and separations of sex, gender, and sexuality. Findings revealed a large minority of women who recalled wanting to be boys in order to do the things that boys got to do (Carr, 2005). This gender order disclosed sexual controversies and childhood rejection of being feminine.
Childhood rejection in any form leads to a generalized gender belief system which ultimately reflects homosexual attitudes, and as Lamar & Kite (1998) mentions that males who are stereotypically feminine in nature are more likely to be fit in homosexuality than are men described in stereotypically masculine terms. On the contrary females possessing stereotypical masculine attitude are more towards the lesbian side than femininity. Investigation on the basis of factor analyses by Lamar & Kite (1998) revealed the hypothesis that behavior toward homosexuality is a multidimensional but unpredictable construct which through appearance of sex differences depends on personal attitude component. Within each component possessed by individual there is a probability that attitudes differ toward gay men and lesbians. Meta analyses by Lamar & Kite (1998) unveiled four attitudinal components toward homosexuality that includes tolerance level, morality, contact, and stereotypes. Except stereotypes, all factors indicated that males were less tolerant of homosexuality or we can say they possess the least potential for being gay than were lesbians.
Lesbian gender literature established by Levitt & Hiestand (2004) points out that feminine butch gender authenticates themselves to their sense of self by living their own identity. This on a negative side permeates a restricted attitude to many girls who perceives to be boys in their childhood and consider themselves as ‘a mistake’. Such an isolated attitude led them to struggle with their own self alone since they had no one with whom they could share their experiences. Even many women preferred to ‘transgender’ themselves in order to feel comfortable and proud of themselves. Participants of the butch community through transcription of the interviews allowed resources for butch females to help them develop a strong and positive identification. This was because their lives were full of challenges that were unique from those faced by other lesbians (Levitt & Hiestand, 2004). Analysis suggests the childhood confusion to be responsible about their sexual orientation and conflicting gender, often experienced by butch girls who confront psychological challenges in developing a healthy self-esteem.
If we talk about gay marriage issues in Canada, youth feel more convenient with the idea of the gay marriage with 66% aged between 18-34 years (Mazur, 2002). Canadian key accomplishments of acknowledging gender freedom has escorted gays and lesbians to form various movements in the spheres of community building and self-perception. This can be illustrated from the fact presented by Mazur (2002) that homosexuality is no longer classified by psychologists as a cognitive deficit. Instead contemporary literature suggests that being gay or lesbian now serves as a source of identity and pride.
What I personally feel is that a lesbophobic or gayish society is the result of those tiny knots that somehow develop into our personalities as a result of childhood rejection or due to some mishap. Although the society welcomes sexuality in the form of gender versatility, but in order to be part of a social structure gay and lesbian liberationists still have a long way to join the struggle for same-sex marriage and their acceptance in various professional settings.
Works Cited
- Carr Lynn, C. “Tomboyism or Lesbianism? beyond Sex/gender/sexual Conflation”. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 2005, 53(1-2): 119.
- Lamar Lisa & Kite Mary. “Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians: A Multidimensional Perspective.” The Journal of Sex Research. 1998, 35(2): 89.
- Levitt, M. Heidi & Hiestand, R. Katherine. “A Quest for Authenticity: Contemporary Butch Gender.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research.2004, 50(9-10): 605.
- Mazur Paul. “Gay and Lesbian Rights in Canada: A Comparative Study.” International Journal of Public Administration. 2002, 25(1): 45.
- Trotter, C. Eileah & Alderson G. Kevin. “University Students’ Definitions of Having Sex, Sexual Partner, and Virginity Loss: The Influence of Participant Gender, Sexual Experience, and Contextual Factors.” The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 2007, 16(1-2): 11.