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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Body-oriented
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
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
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
References
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