Clarifying Basic Concepts: Conceptualizing Sexuality

Author(s): Stephen L. Goettsch

Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 249-255
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813019
Accessed: 16-04-2018 17:01 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Sex Research

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 249-255 May, 1989

Brief Reports
CLARIFYING BASIC CONCEPTS:
CONCEPTUALIZING SEXUALITY

STEPHEN L. GOETTSCH, Ph.D.

Miami University

While sexuality is the focus of extensive research, the concept has not
been adequately defined. In this paper, sexuality is defined as the in?
dividual capacity to respond to physical experiences which are capable
of producing body-centered genital excitation, that only subsequently
becomes associated with cognitive constructs (either anticipatory for
new experiences or reflective of past experiences) independent of on?
going physical experiences. The discussion focuses on four components
of this definition: that sexuality is an individual capacity, is experiential,
is body-oriented, and is directed toward genital excitation.

KEY WORDS: externalized sexuality, sexuality, sexual enactment,

sexual ideology, social construction of sexuality

Defining Sexuality
Precise definitions are essential for systematic theoretical development and
cumulative research. Unfortunately, as Reiss (1986) concludes, a precise
definition of sexuality is not available. Without a precise conceptual definition
of the primary term, sexuality research is either atheoretical or reflects
disciplinary theories modified to include sexuality, instead of reflecting "sex?
uality" theories. Although a useful definition of sexuality must have the
broadest possible applicability for researchers and practitioners with diverse
orientations and concerns, efforts to incorporate all sexual phenomena within
a single definition of sexuality inevitably obscure critical distinctions and con-
found research. A central concern in providing a general definition of sexuality
is to develop an essentialist definition of sexuality that can be distinguished
from constructionist conceptualizations (Foucault, 1978; Reiss, 1986; Weeks,
1985, 1986), which are more appropriately conceptualized as sexual enact?
ment.

Definitions focusing on orgasm, coitus, or similar overt events conceptualize

sexuality as an observable term (Kaplan, 1964). The definition presented in
this article conceptualizes sexuality as an "indirect observable" (Kaplan,
The author is grateful to Elizabeth Allgeier, Robert Atchley, Wayne Plasek, and Rick
Troiden for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephen L. Goettsch, Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, 1601 Peck Blvd., Miami University-Hamilton, Hamilton,
OH 45011.

249

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 250 BRIEF REPORTS

1964), in that properties like genita

uality. Distinguishing between sex
sexuality (as variables) is important
the properties of things rather than
theories upon selected characteristi
(Dubin, 1969, p. 30).
The definition of sexuality propose
dividual capacity to respond to phy
ducing body-centered genital exc
associated with cognitive constructs
or reflective of past experiences) in
Sexuality belongs to the class of p
than cognitive, responses to physic
other members of this class by a re
belongs to the same class as sexualit
pleasure rather than genital focus.
tiality, not as an inherent force. Th
frequencies or culturally engende
tified as "sexual enactment."

Elaborating the Definition

Four aspects of this definition benefit from elaboration: (1) sexuality is an in

dividual capacity, (2) sexuality is experiential, (3) sexuality is body-oriented,
and (4) sexuality is genitally oriented. Each aspect clarifies assumptions an
propositions inherent in this definition of sexuality.

Individual Capacity
Sexuality is an individual capacity arising within each person, not
originating from external sources. Constructionist interpretations of sexuality
are incomplete in this regard (Foucault, 1978; Reiss, 1986; Weeks, 1985,1986).
Norms provide the social parameters for sexual enactment, but cultures and
norms channel, not create, sexuality. Cultures construct the manifestations of
sexuality, the sexual enactment, which includes norms, beliefs, values, and
behaviors?all elements that underlie the discourse and regulation of sexuali?
ty. For example, Reiss (1986) focuses on cultural variations in sexual enact?
ment to identify universal dimensions of sexuality, but cultural scripts estab?
lish social manifestations, not sexuality. Emphasizing cultural scripts
facilitates Reiss's purpose without identifying the essence of sexuality. While
recognizing cultural diversity in practices, desirable objects, and develop?
mental sequences, it is simultaneously important to recognize that sexuality
has basic uniformities.
One's sexuality comes from within but is normalized by the discourse of sex?
uality. According to Pillard and Weinrich (1987), prenatal development
regulates individuals' masculinization and defeminization, which accounts for
much of the subsequent variation in sexual patterns and orientation. Whil
Pillard and Weinrich's (1987) periodic table identifies a biological basis for in?
dividuals' sexual orientations and related behavioral patterns, it does not
explain the social significance given to those patterns. Cultures transform in-

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRIEF REPORTS 251

dividuals' emergent sexuality into

classifications, which structure so
(Foucault, 1984).
Sexuality is often experienced subj
of one's sexuality is raised by exter
Women's manifest sexual arousal ste
factors?such as the partner, flirtat
(Knoth, Boyd, & Singer, 1988; Weinrich, 1988)?than does men's. These
cultural scripts which identify appropriate sexual partners, contexts, and
activities do not create people's sexuality. External stimuli focus attention on
individuals' capacity, and they define the appropriateness of sexual arenas,
but it is improper to confuse stimuli with the physiological capacity to
respond.

Experiential
Undoubtedly, the most provocative assertion in this definition is that sex?
uality is restricted to direct tactile experience, specifically excluding the
systematic thoughts that divide experiences into socially constructed sexual
and nonsexual categories. This is controversial, partially because of obvious
sexual enactment interactions with cognitions, and partially because many
theoretical and ideological orientations depend on this linkage. But it is impor?
tant to recognize that experiences can be sexual without the individuals in?
volved perceiving them as such; for example, a young woman has a sexual
experience if she achieves an orgasm while riding a horse, even if she does not
define the situation as sexual, and even if she doesn't know about orgasm. The
significance of social definitions is that people must define situations as sexual
before they will intentionally behave sexually, that is, intentionally manifest
sexual enactment. This is evident in the differences in contemporary sexual
constructions which define contact during breast-feeding and hugging
relatives as nonsexual, while contact during foreplay leading to coitus as
sexual. Despite nonsexual scripts and subjective definitions, all these contacts
are sexual according to this definition.
While social constructions support some sexual manifestations, the funda?
mental cognitive process is to desexualize stimuli by moving the perception of
stimuli beyond the range that evokes sexual responses. This cognitive de-
sexualization process is evident in the maturation of polymorphic perversity
into monomorphic sexuality (Freud, 1953). By subordinating sexuality to
reproduction, Freud desexualized the clitoris in favor of coitally induced
vaginal orgasms because they support reproduction (Robinson, 1976). Even
though reproduction depends on coitus, sexuality does not mature into coitus;
all techniques leading to orgasm have rewarding outcomes. This is significant
because it identifies infants' socio-sexual development as a process of
desexualizing pleasurable bodily contact (e.g., infants learn that contact with
relatives is not to be experienced as sexual, and they learn to feel ashamed of
their bodies and to feel guilty about touching their genitals). Although, like
children, tactile stimulation of any part of adults' bodies has the potential to
cause sexual response, social constructions block adults' sensitivity to this
capacity and restrict their sexual enactment.

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
252 BRIEF REPORTS

The experiential nature of sexua

which cognition and physical per
separates sexuality and cognitio
disabilities unequivocally separate
without physical perception occur
perception without (or with very
developmental disability.
Experiential learning. Sexual resp
personal contact occurs, individua
cally construct interpersonal se
detailed and complex than virgins
sensations differ from expectatio
experience develop arousal sequen
sized interpersonal contact. Sub
sidering desired sexual objects
present tactile stimulation (such
which has become associated wit
fantasized interpersonal contact.
sexual experience, they can reco
aroused through the interaction o
association is irrelevant to defini
the interaction between experien
and emotional responses transfor
Sexual encounters with new part
sexual response. Novelty can crea
new partner may increase experie
to new variations in timing, touc
experiences that are too differen
may shift individuals' attention f
successful techniques seem ineffe
tions in an altered state of sexual
behaving sexually?what to do,
supposed to be. In this case, uniqu
fostering spectatoring and sexual
Paralysis. This discussion is limit
which include both loss of motor
tactile erections. People paralyze
be nonsexual because their lack
anticipating or reconstructing su
arousal. Explaining such physical
never has experienced sensations
born blind. It is difficult to expl
experience. The point is that bo
sexuality.
Developmental disability. Med
funded institutions for people wh
that has emerged is finding wa
have no communicable conceptio
dividuals engage in masturbatory

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRIEF REPORTS 253

arousal, but they do not understa

orgasm. This fosters aggressive be
assessments must rely totally on no
behaviors. But clearly, some of thes
as judged by others and as defined
cognitions.

Body-oriented

Sexuality is physical both in source

tion of the body regardless of the s
person, self-stimulation, or unco
depend on muscular tension and
muscular energy (Masters & John
and subjective sensations. This phys
not cognitive or subconscious. Tr
confuses motivation with sexualit
cycle (1966) makes it possible to
independent of cultural scripts. F
physiological changes in breasts, wh
breasts as erogenous zones. On the o
size or prohibit contact with an ero
ing anal contact), but they do not c
Individuals differ in sexual acuity
experiences, as is evident in aging
genital manipulation to achieve an
sensations, although cognitions med
ual enactment, but it is important
and cognitions. Despite powerful
achieve erections, penetration, and
example of how combining cognitio
ment, causes problems. The physica
consensual coitus, and on rare occ
victim. Such victims' cognitions of
independent of their physiological r
sexual response establishes cogniti
Genital Excitation

Why are some body parts and activities perceived as more sexual than
others? Culturally imbuing specific body parts and activities with sexua
meaning influences sexual enactment but does not change sexuality.
Although the identification of sexual anatomy and behaviors is influenced by
reproductive anatomy, sexuality and reproduction are distinct. For example,
orgasm (pleasure) and ejaculation (reproduction) are distinct physiological
processes, most visibly when considering the functions of ejaculation and
orgasm for women, and orgasm for male children. Further, only some struc?
tures, like the penis and vagina, are both reproductive anatomy and erogenous
zones, whereas structures like the mouth, clitoris, and anus are erogenous
zones but not reproductive structures. Because stimulating nonreproductive
areas is sexual and can produce orgasms, sexuality and orgasm do not depend

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
254 BRIEF REPORTS

on coitus or reproductive anatomy

Despite cultural variations, sexual
tion and orgasms because peop
Although stimulating the entire b
becomes a standard technique beca
orgasms. The genital focus in sexu
more orgasms, people become t
required to produce an orgasm i
This turns genital stimulation,
orgasm, into the apex and conclusi
supporting continued activity, su
shall & Suggs, 1971).
Cultures regulate sexuality by
anatomy and processes, specificall
physical sexual experience or rep
possible in a viable community is
a replacement population. Preclud
the community's reservations abo
these acts does not destabilize the
erogenous zones provide effective
during reproductive activities. By
activities, sexually restrictive cult
genitals, reproduction, and sexual
tional sexual regulation.

Applications
Research concerned with overt
this definition. The most significa
portance of sexual constructions i
development of sexual behavior
argument that sexual construction
fessions and, through the control
definition reinforces the importan
moting sexuality, including ma
However, research concerning the
at a fundamental level. The contr
sexual standards based on the assu
waiting to explode must be mod
that must be revised are: oppositi
sexual desires that would otherwise remain dormant, and the habitual
research hypothesis that sexually explicit material must be harming viewers.

Definition Summary

Defining "sexuality" makes it possible to distinguish between sexuality and

sexual enactment by making assumptions about the nature of sexuality ex?
plicit. Sexuality is not a powerful, potentially destructive form of energy. Sex?
uality uses physical energy to create and concentrate on pleasurable bodily
sensations, and it competes with other activities. Similarly, sexuality and
reproduction are distinct phenomena that share some activities and body

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRIEF REPORTS 255

parts. Reproduction is reinforced by

reproduction affects sexuality more
and individuals' perceptions comb
sexuality and emotions are distinct
judgment. There is no inherent mor
derived from social conventions reg
jective moral status may be unverif

References

Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. New York: Free Press.

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, volume I: An introduction. New York:
Random House, Inc.
Foucault, M. (1984). Preface to the history of sexuality: Volume II. In P. Rabinow
(Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 333-339). New York: Pantheon Books.
Freud, S. (1953). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Standard edition of The com?
plete psychological works ofSigmund Freud, Vol. VII. London: Hogarth Press.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. Scran-
ton, Pennsylvania: Chandler Publishing.
Knoth, R., Boyd, K., & Singer, B. (1988). Empirical tests of sexual selection theory:
Predictions of sex differences in onset, intensity and time course of sexual arousal.
Journal of Sex Research, 24, 73-89.
Marshall, D., & Suggs, R. C. (1971). Human sexual behavior. New York: Basic Books.
Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little,
Brown.

Pillard, R. C, & Weinrich, J. D. (1987). The periodic table model of the gender trans-
positions: Part I. A theory based on masculinization and defeminization of the
brain. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 425-454.
Reiss, I. L. (1986). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Robinson, P. (1976). The modernization of sex. New York: Harper and Row.
Starbuck, G. (1981). Models of human sexuality and social control. Washington, DC:
University Press of America.
Weeks, J. (1985). Sexuality and its discontents: Meanings, myths, and modern
sexualities. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Weeks, J. (1986). Sexuality. New York: Travistock Publications.
Weinrich, J. D. (1988). The periodic table model of the gender transpositions, Part II:
Limerent and lust sexual attraction and the nature of bisexuality. Journal of Sex
Research, 24, 113-129.

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.190 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms