Pensando el Sexo

by Gayle S. Rubin

In her 1984 essay "Thinking Sex", Rubin interrogated the value system that social groups—whether left- or right-wing, feminist or patriarchal—attribute to sexuality which defines some behaviours as good/natural and others (such as pedophilia) as bad/unnatural.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Essays, Queer, Sexuality, Politics, Gender Studies

Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

About the author

Gayle S. Rubin (born 1949) is a cultural anthropologist best known as an activist and influential theorist of sex and gender politics. She has written on a range of subjects including feminism, sadomasochism, prostitution, pedophilia, pornography and lesbian literature, as well as anthropological studies and histories of sexual subcultures, especially focused in urban contexts.

Gayle S. Rubin is Associate Professor of Anthropology, Women’s Studies, and Comparative Literature at the University of Michigan.

Reviews

[Griffin Wilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This article is widely considered to be the foundational text of queer theory, sexuality studies, and gay and lesbian studies. With this in mind, the article is somewhat revealing.

Otherwise, it reads like a poorly-done "Genealogy of Morals," but for sexuality, or a ramshackle Foucauldian Archeology; as in some other prominent queer theorists, one finds a disturbing sympathy for incest and pedophilia.

The arguments advanced here are compelling to many, so, at the very least, one may find reading this helpful in understanding the way of opinion.

[Lady Nerd]

Interesting, except for the part where she literally condoned paedophilia

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for class. Interesting and super important piece ya, but was taken aback by the consistent defense of incest and pedophilia. I can see Rubin’s logic, but like, no.

[César Galicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ensayo ESENCIAL para comprender la dimensión política de la sexualidad y romper muchas de las falacias que la rodean. La crítica de Rubin es devastadora con todo lo que toca y hoy, más de 30 años después de haber sido escrito, las ideas plasmadas en este texto son más vigentes que nunca.

[Marie Leeman]

foundational text for queer theory but why is she defending pedophilia and incest? hard read

[honor · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

literally everything about this book that wasn’t condoning awful crimes against humanity was amazing. the actual sex theory surrounding gay people and s/m was fascinating and made so many good points. BUT WHY DID SHE HAVE TO DEFEND PAEDOPHILIA AND INCEST. WHY DID SHE HAVE TO RUIN IT

[elle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was so illuminating but also pretty challenging— an amazing articulation and enunciation of what it means to be Queer.

Queer theory supports the rejection of the regimes of the normal, and being at odds with this world. Where do “unsavory” erotic tendencies (i.e. incest, pedophilia, beastiality, etc.) fit into this conversation? What enables these erotic orientations to exist? Non-horizontal power structures, the ethics of consent, patriarchy, and/or the lack of agency children have, maybe. I was really challenged by this point Rubin makes, because I understand the logic and how the state exercises punitive power over demonized, sexual minorities (often painting them with a wide brush). When these right-wing talking points and laws are enacted to drive Undesirables out of communities, visible daily life, and the labor force all “perverts” can be treated with the equal amounts of disgust, regardless of where they sit on the sexual hierarchy in relation to a heterosexual, monogamous, non cross-generational dynamic. And besides, when the state does try to circumvent the threat of violence against a vulnerable population (usually, children), the laws are most often misguided, ineffective, and employs the use of defenseless scapegoats (historically, gay men, and currently trans people).

(Also, who has and continues to deprive children of their agency and rights, anyways? We simultaneously want to put them on a moral pedestal, while also completely failing to advocate for their dignity and freedom. Something I definitely need to think about more.)

I think the true concern we would have— especially as Queers, is with the abuse of authority, and not pathologizing variations of sexuality per se. We are concerned with the deconstructing of supposedly morally chauvinistic or superior stances/ways of life which protect, foster, and normalize violence. I need to read more about this but the feeling I get now is not the impulse to include every “sexuality” that is oriented against the regimes of the normal under the Queer descriptor uncritically, but to interrogate how abuse of authority and power relations can come into play especially by the state and protectors of Capital. I don’t think Rubin’s end goal was to write a defense of pedophilia and incest specifically, but to demonstrate how the knee-jerk reaction to pathologize sexuality and incite
moral panics over sexual plurality materially hurts all queer people (and sex workers) especially those already being driven out of a visible life.

Also, see: the fallacy of misplaced scale. It’s a great way to suss out moral panics over sex and sexuality.

[David Pérez · Rating 2 out of 5]

Te punts molt interessants, però s'ha quedat molt anticuat tot i la reedició. No sé que collons és la constant defensa del porno i la preocupació excessiva de la sexualitat infantil.
Almenys cada vegada que veia la portada pensava en la cançó de la bad gyal

[leren_lezen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Iconic, radical and foundational text for the field of sex-positive queer studies (yet funnily also introducing the term sex negativity, not negativity in the psychoanalytic sense though). Rubin's notion of sex negativity refers to the dominant Western belief that sex is an inherently destructive and dangerous force, hence why sex acts are subjected to so much moral panic (the urge to strictly categorise them as good or bad). This means we cannot really look at the question of HOW: how gayness, how BDSM or how non-monogamy, but rather tend to only ask the WHY question for the (presupposed) traumatic etiology of those sexualities that are outside of the 'charmed circle' of sexuality: those sexual desires and expressions that fall outside of the norms of respectability politics, such as the cishetero, reproductive, same-class, same age monogamous couples or (maybe today?) the respectable queer who mirrors these heteronormative ideals. Rubin furthermore describes (in Foucauldian terms) how sex negativity leads to a massive overestimation of the importance, potential dangers and naturalised connections of (moral) identity and the kind of sex acts in our society. I liked the text quite a lot, especially considering how brave it must be to write this in 1980s US, where right-wing conservative beliefs around the nuclear family were incredibly strong, as Rubin really opens the floor to investigating why we love to see pornography, BDSM, sex work, non-monogamy or queerness as inherently unethical or perverse, even though these practices can be more ethical (or, maybe better stated, at least not a priori less ethical) than the normalised and even idealised insidious violence that the cishetpatriarchy inflicts upon people everyday. However, as most of the most radical 80s feminist/queer thinkers, I do believe that Rubin - similar to Foucault - goes too far in her understanding of incest and paedophilia (which she retroactively also rectified so that's pretty cool). Foucault gets much less shit for his views than Rubin though, and this is probably because he is a man, even though he never rectified his views (?), which is probably also because he is a man. To come back to Rubin: yes, we should not stigmatise these desires (as desire is outside of our control), and this stigmatisation is deeply problematic by itself, yet the question of normativity cannot be fully escaped, and some interactions (as with minors) could be considered as fundamentally wrong.

[Linda Arnoldus · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Sexuality is political.” This quote is the main idea of Rubin’s essay. This is an extremely scholarly breakdown of the politics of sex. Rubin discusses a lot of modern sex theory such as sex negativity, the fallacy of the misplaced scale, the hierarchical valuation of sex acts, the domino theory of sexual peril, and the lack of concept of benign sexual variation. She opposes biological determinism (Freud’s “anatomy is destiny”) and explains sexual behavior from a sociopolitical standpoint. She shows how sex is influenced by medicine, politics, culture, society, and vice versa.

This is a very relevant read with the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade and numerous other assaults the US government has made on the reproductive rights of women in this country.

Things I liked:
- Rubin talks about the rights: of sex workers, to contraceptives and abortion, to sex education, of the LGBT community, etc.
- She advocates for sex education for minors and LGBT sex education. As someone who grew up in Mississippi and received partially abstinence-only sex education, I can say it did not cut it. That’s why our teen pregnancy rates are so high! Abstinence-only education does not work! I also agree that LGBT sex education is necessary. We need to stop other-izing being gay and accept that gay sex is just as normal and straight sex. I wish I had some sort of formal LGBT sex education growing up!
- She gets into the nitty-gritty history of the legal, medical, and social persecution of the LGBT community.
- She states that race and gender are social constructs. They definitely are!
- She says that people shouldn’t see masturbation as a second-class substitute for “real sex.” Agreed!
- She’s against kink-shaming. Agreed! As long as you’re not hurting anyone.

Things I didn’t like:
- She talks about “boylovers” specifically referring to older gay men who are attracted to “boys.” At first I thought she was just talking about guys who look younger or who are young adults but she is literally talking about MINORS here. I disagree with her defense of any adult intercourse with minors.
- She makes matters worse by challenging age of consent laws. I don’t really care about close-age cases, and I don’t care about any age difference between adults, but she seems to imply that the basis for age of consent laws is flawed. In Mississippi the age of consent for minors is 16, then once you turn 18 you are no longer a minor and are considered an adult under the law. I think this makes sense as in the US there are pretty concrete developmental milestones (get driver’s license at 16, graduate high school at 18, legally drink at 21, etc.). Adulthood here is separated into pretty concrete brackets.
- She defended this lady who had nude photographs of her 7-year-old son masturbating in the MoMA and the Met? I guess art is art but a child cannot consent to having a photo of himself taken and replicated like this?
- She also talks about consenting incest. She touches on this briefly and only for cases where they didn’t know each other beforehand. Still I’m not sure I can get behind it.

Overall really well-researched and well-written. Had to dock it 2 stars because of the underage stuff.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un texto fundamental para romper con toda idea preconcebida sobre la propia sexualidad y la visión que se tiene de ella en general. Ya sea influenciada por valores religiosos, psiquiátrico-científicos, morales o sociales/populares.
Me gustaría decir que se ha quedado antiguo en algunos aspectos y puede que en parte sí. Que algunas mejoras y cambios de visión ha habido. Al menos a nivel legal y en cierta medida a nivel social. Pero después uno piensa y analiza bien lo que dice Rubin sobre la jerarquización moral del sexo o el pensamiento antiporno y antisexo de ciertos feminismos “radicales” y se me pasa. Que la transfobia o desconocimiento de este sector social aún está muy presente y que aún existe una gran vergüenza y/o discriminación al hablar de ciertas sexualidades no normativas.
Por otro lado, el gran elefante en la sala de sus páginas: el sexo “intergeneracional”. Todas sus menciones (que serán 4-5) son tan matizables y requieren de tanta aclaración (que no se hace) que a algunos tirará para atrás y desde luego hará que sea necesaria una relectura de página. Creo que es obvio que la autora no defiende la pedofilia y que estas menciones se dan en un contexto muy particular y desde luego no teniendo en cuenta casos de obvio abuso. Probablemente la autora contaba con una cierta comprensión lectora que al lector despistado, impresionable, partidista y/o casual no se le puede pedir. Y entonces el texto de Rubin toma aún más sentido porque está dispuesto a abrir conversaciones sobre temas tabús que una gran parte de la población no está dispuesta a tener. Y me refiero especialmente cuando la autora habla de homosexualidad, promiscuidad, sadomasoquismo, fetichismo y trabajo sexual.
Iluminador y clave para una verdadera liberación sexual.

[Rubin Pérez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ha influido bastante que haya tardado tanto en terminármelo, si no, posiblemente tendría 4 estrellas. El análisis de todas las políticas contra la sexualidad es exhaustivo y digno de encomio. Sin embargo, me pierdo. No tengo ni idea de derecho, de leyes ni de muchos de los personajes políticos que menciona, así que esa parte me ha aburrido bastante, sobre todo, teniendo en cuenta que el epílogo de esta edición lo dedica a eso mismo. No pasa nada.
El contenido filosófico es de valor, las ideas son claras aunqur sí noté bastante repetición, pero se lo paso porque es socióloga. El prólogo me generó muchísimo malestar, toda la descripción de la lucha entre la WAP y Samois y esas campañas de acoso y derribo me enervaron. Las de la WAP son las terfas de la actualidad.
La distinción sexo/género es la base fundamental de las teorías queer actuales y se la debemos a Rubin. Los gráficos de "El círculo mágico" y "La jerarquía sexual" son magníficos. Supongo que tendré que insertar alguna broma que me separe completamente de los planteamientos incestuosos y pederastas de la autora para constatar que "no soy una pervertida como ella". Bueno, no sé, para mí siguen siendo límites en la vida real, pero eso no me impide someterlos a crítica en la teoría, tal como ella hace. Le doy crédito por ello. No iré más allá.
Mi idea favorita está en la sinopsis del propio libro: "Pero es precisamente en momentos como estos, cuando vivimos con la posibilidad de una destrucciónimpensable, cuando la gente puede volverse peligrosamenteloca por la sexualidad [...]: adquieren una inmensa carga simbólica".

[Kash]

Trabajo casi fundacional y de gran influencia. Los conceptos que utiliza sobre la estratificación sexual, su análisis sumario de la legislación sexual y otros temas son no sólo interesantes, sino muy necesarios. Sin embargo, creo que su análisis ha sido superado en muchos sentidos. Es un texto muy apegado a su contexto y además aunque desde el punto de vista analítico entiendo la inclusión de las "relaciones intergeneracionales" en la conceptualización, también creo que peca de indulgente y es peligrosamente fácil fácil leerlo de forma malintencionada, especialmente teniendo en cuenta que socialmente hay un gran estigma que liga la homosexualidad y la pedofilia y teniendo en cuenta lo mucho que la comunidad LGBT ha luchado y lucha por deshacerse de ese estereotipo.

Su análisis de los textos legales me parece muy interesante y creo que valdría la pena verlo de forma más amplia. Tal vez encuentre más cosas al respecto en los trabajos de Foucault.

[Alexandros · Rating 2 out of 5]

Όλα είναι social construct, ας προμοτάρουμε την παιδοφιλία. Το ότι δίνω δύο αστέρια αντί για ένα οφείλεται στο ότι τα υπόλοιπα επιχειρήματα είναι σχετικά relevant (π.χ. διαχωρισμός μεταξύ φύλου και σεξουαλικότητας), αλλά εν τέλει το να περιμένεις από postmodern thinker να μη τα σκατώσει είναι μάλλον ένα όνειρο απατηλό.

[Autumn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for class and while there was lots of information I was surprised and learned from, there were a few areas I found to be not so understandable. The author did divine into different areas of sexuality and the history of it but the area where the author justified incest and pedophilia really made me question where this author's line was.

[Ram · Rating 3 out of 5]

This essay is vital to anyone interested in learning more about feminist and queer theory.

That being said, you've seen what everyone else has said. Rubin spends part of this work defending pedophilia and pornography. Part of me thinks this may be a generational thing, but I'm not sure.

You should still read it bc it's relatively short and free (!!!) online.

[erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very much enjoyed this one. I just love studies like this one and topics on human nature and how we approach our own sexuality.

It may be a little slow as it's not a novel to those who are uninterested in the general topic.

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Argues for a radical theory of sexuality that considers how sex has been policed and controlled similar to other forms of oppression. I do not agree with all of the points, but do appreciate the framework.

[David Rodríguez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aunque sea de los 80s, es pura actualidad. Mucho de los debates a los que hace referencia siguen estando plenamente activos dentro de los feminismos. Seguimos necesitando y debemos seguir promoviendo una teoría radical del sexo.

[elena]

read for my final dissertation looking for info. so i'm not going to rate it cause i didn't find anything useful, really. i mostly skimmed.

[sab · Rating 1 out of 5]

Although the underlying argument about the criminalization of sex and sexual minorities is incredibly important, Rubin's reasonings behind pedophilia and consent were disturbing and distasteful.

[Majudd7 · Rating 3 out of 5]

high highs and low lows.

[Serenity · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful

[nomi]

read for unii

[Dominique D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for gender studies. Rubin is such a yapper, but she makes some good points minus the pedophilia supporting (girl what?).

[Nilsu · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can’t believe this text is considered foundational to queer theory when Rubin explicitly suggests lowering the age of consent... Pedophiles can consider this as their bible :D

[cat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Loved her dive into the history of sexual politics and the periods of morality crazes in the past two centuries. Her defence of paedophilia and incest, I did not love so much.

[izzyipee · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the most heinous excuse for feminist literature I've ever seen, arguing that if women and gay people are fighting for equality based on their gender and sexuality, then paedophiles should be granted those same rights. Rubin even dared to mention a real-life case of child abuse and argues that the offender being criticised and fired from their job is an act of sexual repression. Absolute dogshit.

[Ellis Turton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this essay as an insight into the foundational texts in Gender Studies, and found some arguments compelling…and then Rubin starts making some interesting (concerning) comments which appear to condone paedophilia and incest. Glad I read it, but more glad for a critical eye.