A Sociological Journey into Sexuality

Author(s): Ira L. Reiss

Source: Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 48, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 233-242
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/352390
Accessed: 10/02/2009 03:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marriage and the Family.

http://www.jstor.org
 A Sociological Journey into Sexuality
IRA L. REISS
University of Minnesota

The Freudian, Marxian, and sociobiological explanations of sexuality are not well designed
for answering questions concerning differences among societies or groups in their sexual
lifestyles. A macro-level, societal explanation of sexuality is needed to answer such ques-
tions. Such a theory is lacking in sociology but is developed in this paper. Sexuality is de-
fined as a societal product whose importance lies more in its physical pleasure and self-
disclosure aspects than in its reproductive potential. Those qualities are universally valued
because they are the building blocks of social relationships. This paper proposes that sex-
uality is universally linked to the social structure in three specific areas: (a) marital
jealousy, (b) gender role power, and (c) beliefs about normality. Variations and interrela-
tions of these three linkages are explained by the logical structure of this sociological
theory. Evidence concerning the theory is explored by examining the Standard Cross
Cultural Sample, National Opinion Research Center surveys, and individual research on
other societies. The sociological explanation presented here applies to both heterosexual
and homosexual relationships and to both industrial and nonindustrial societies. A number
of specific, interrelatedpropositions that explain societal variations within the three univer-
sal linkage areas are explored. The logical structure of the theory is developed as the con-
text of those propositions. The paper also treats the relevance of this theory for the applied
professions dealing with sexuality.

This article presents a brief overview of a book- differences in sexuality that exist in cultures with
similar economic systems. The orthodox Marxian
length societal-level explanation of sexuality that I
have recently completed (Reiss, 1986). As a sociol- approach also has difficulty in explaining the ex-
ogist I have been dissatisfied with the Freudian ex-ploitation of one gender by the other that exists in
planation of universal stages of psychosexual societies without private property, such as hunting
development. Such an approach was too psycho- and gathering societies, or for that matter, the
logical and too much simply a reflection of Vien- present-day People's Republic of China (Stacey,
nese culture in the early 20th century to permit us 1983). Nevertheless, the relationship of sexuality
to explain many of the differences in sexuality to positions of social power is one that I have
that exist among various societies. Another developed in other ways in my own work, and so I
popular approach is the Marxian view, stressing do retain some elements of Marxism. The more
the importance of the economic system in the ex- recent sociobiological explanation has little
ploitation of one group by another. I have per- relevance for explaining cross-cultural variations
ceived the Marxian view of sexuality as, among and changes over a few generations. Sociobiology
other things, being unable to explain the many deals with biological determinants that operate
over many thousands of years and thus cannot ex-
plain a change in sexual customs that occurs in
one generation, nor can it explain variations in
This paper is a revised version of the 1984 Burgess
AwardAddress,whichwas givenat the annualmeeting sexual customs that occur within the same genetic
of the NationalCouncilon FamilyRelationsin Dallas, sex in different societies.
Texas, 7 November1985. But if one rejects most of these dominant ex-
planatory schemas, what does one substitute?
Departmentof Sociology, University of Minnesota, During the last 25 years or so there have only been
Minneapolis,MN 55455. a few attempts in sociology at theory building

Journalof Marriageand the Family48 (May 1986):233-242 233

 234 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
concerning sexuality, and even those have not at-
tempted an overall, cross-cultural explanation of
all types of sexuality (Reiss, 1960, 1967, 1979,
1980; Gagnon and Simon, 1973; Christensen,
1962; Ehrmann, 1959; Delamater and MacCor-
quodale, 1979). These efforts have consisted of
partial or minitheories applying only to specific
types of sexuality or to just our own society. No
comprehensive sociological theory of human sex-
uality has been formulated.
I began to work upon this task some five years
ago. It was indeed a massive undertaking, for it
presumed extensive knowledge of cultures around
the world as well as of existing explanatory socio-
logical propositions. The challenge was not only
to become familiar with this literature but some-
how to integrate it conceptually with new proposi-
tions into a macro-level, societal explanation of
sexuality.
I stress a macro-level approach in my theory.
Research and theory at micro level of analysis
focuses on interaction and socialization processes.
Such an approach could examine sexuality in
terms of such things as individual adjustments in
sexual scripts. Analysis at this level has been quite
modest in terms of theory development (Singer,
1985; Simon and Gagnon, 1984). I have integrated
some aspects of a micro-level analysis into my ex-
planation, but basically it is built upon a macro
foundation that comparatively examines and
seeks to explain different sexual behaviors and at-
titudes in various groups and societies. I chose this
macro-level approach because it was related to
some of my previous theorizing, it was of primary
interest to me, and it is the most distinctively
sociological tradition. I also felt it had been the
most neglected by other theorists.
I spent the better part of four years reading,
discussing, and formulating my ideas for this ven-
ture. Given the stage of development of sociologi-
cal explanations of sexuality, my theory is of
necessity based considerably on its logical struc-
ture; empirical evidence is not available to test all
of its parts. Nevertheless, I did examine what evi-
dence was available to test my ideas. The Stan-
dard Cross Cultural Sample of 186 nonindustrial
societies around the world (Murdock and White,
1969) was useful in this regard. In addition, my
own reading of other nonindustrial societies as
well as of Western industrial societies allowed me
to examine the fit of my thinking with these addi-
tional data. In this paper I will present an over-
view and point out the major features of the
theory I discuss in my book (Reiss, 1986). Finally,
I should note that I developed this sociological
theory of sexuality not only for sociologists, but
for anyone with a serious intellectual interest in
understanding sexuality.
A SOCIETAL CONCEPTION OF SEXUALITY
First we must clarify what we mean by concepts
like sex, gender, and sexuality so that we may
communicate clearly. The word sex has multiple
meanings in our society. The term sometimes
refers to genetic sex, sometimes to gender, and
sometimes to sexual activity: for example, "Her
sex is female"; "Her sex role is that of a woman";
"She had sex with him." These different potential
meanings must be clarified if we are to have a
shared, societal-level definition of sexuality.
We cannot change the way the word sex is used
in public discourse but we can clarify our scien-
tific usage. I suggest that in our scientific dis-
course we use the word sex to mean only genetic
sex, that is, XX (female) or XY (male). For the
sake of clarity, I would use the phrase gender role,
and not sex role, to refer to the rights and duties
assigned to those called males and females in a
society.
Such clarification is sufficient for our use of the
terms genetic sex and gender role, but we still need
a definition of the word sexuality that is precise
and measurable, because sexuality is the focus of
my sociological theory. I would define human sex-
uality as consisting of those cultural scripts aimed
at erotic arousal that produce genital responses. I
believe this definition would hold for any type of
society. It can be tested by seeing if this is indeed
what people mean by sexuality in various socie-
ties. It can further be examined to discern whether
the genital responses that occur in all societies can
be largely related to the sexual scripts aimed at
erotic arousal rather than to biological or individ-
ualistic factors.
According to my sociological definition, sex-
uality is learned and it is learned in a societal con-
text. Sexuality is thus not "natural," nor is it indi-
vidualistic; rather, it is a social outcome that we
learn to achieve in much the same way as we do
our friendship and love relationships. In this sense
I am qualifying the assertion frequently made by
Masters and Johnson that if you "remove the
road blocks, sex will work" (Masters and
Johnson, 1970). That statement seems to imply
that there is a natural sexual outcome that will
flow forth. I believe sexuality is programmed just
as other social behavior, and it will not "work"
unless that social programming has occurred. It is
not just a matter of removing road blocks from an
innate pathway; rather, it is primarily a matter of
having been socially taught how to create a path-
SEXUALITY
way that will lead to sexual interaction with
others.
Presuming we agree upon this definition of sex-
uality, the next question concerns the place of sex-
uality in the social structure of human societies. I
would start by asserting that in all cultures, sex-
uality is viewed as important. This is so in cultures
that attempt to restrict it as well as those that en-
courage it. In short, no culture is indifferent to
sexuality. Why is this so? My answer rejects the
common reply that sexuality is seen as important
because of its reproductive consequences. Allow
me to explain.
In most nonindustrial societies the connection
of sexuality to pregnancy is not as direct as we
perceive it to be in industrial societies today.
Pregnancy is often seen as not simply resulting
from acts of intercourse but rather as an outcome
of one particular type of sexuality, such as
repetitive coitus with one's marriage partner. Fur-
ther, pregnancy only occurs in many cultures if
the husband, in addition to copulating, gives the
"spirit child" to his wife (Berndt and Berndt,
1951). In addition, the production and care of
children is often seen as a group activity of many
related kin and not just the concern of one couple
(Levy, 1973). In this sense reproduction is not an
individual biological act but a group undertaking.
In the above ways, then, what we in the West
scientifically view as the biological connection of
sexuality to reproduction is seriously modified in
the shared thinking of people in other cultural set-
tings.
Even in our type of society, where we stress the
biological connections and reproductive outcomes
of sexuality, the importance we place on sexuality
is not only due to that perspective. Consider the
fact that, although 10-year-olds cannot become
pregnant, we are more restrictive of 10-year-olds
having coitus than of 20-year-olds. That surely
points to our assigning importance to some aspect
of sexuality other than reproduction. Think also
of the importance placed upon sexuality by homo-
sexuals-pregnancy is not even an issue there. In
addition, would a husband with a sterile wife view
sexuality as less important than would a husband
with a fertile wife? All of this is not to deny that
the reproductive capacity of sexuality is usually
one factor in the importance placed upon sexuali-
ty, but rather, it is to assert that in many societies
reproduction is perceived differently and is often
not the most crucial factor.
Two other major factors, in my view, are more
central and universal features of sexuality than is
reproduction. I submit that they are the key
reasons for the importance all societies place upon
sexuality. If all reproductive outcomes of sexuali-
235
ty were to vanish, these two factors would still
maintain its universal importance. The first char-
acteristic of sexuality that contributes to its
evaluation as important is the obvious one of
physical pleasure. Clearly, human beings value
physical pleasure, and sexuality has a good proba-
bility of yielding pleasure in some degree. The sec-
ond characteristic is perhaps not quite so obvious;
it is self-disclosure, or the revelation to others of
intimate aspects of the self. I do not necessarily
imply affectionate ties when I speak of self-disclo-
sure. Consider that one does not typically have or-
gasms in public, and thus the simple act of experi-
encing orgasm in front of another human being is
an uncommon disclosure of oneself. That kind of
self-disclosure may lead to disclosure on levels
other than the sexual, such as the intellectual,
emotional, or affectionate. Cultures differ as to
which outcomes they choose to encourage and
under what conditions. But the basic self-
disclosure of showing passion is a most common
(though, of course, not guaranteed) outcome of
sexual relationships.
Why should physical pleasure and self-disclo-
sure make sexuality important in all societies? The
answer is, I believe, that those are the key charac-
teristics of important social relationships. To il-
lustrate, think of friendship and kinship relation-
ships. They are everywhere valued and they too,
at their core, entail physical pleasure and self-
disclosure. There is physical pleasure in the em-
braces (nonsexual) that occur in friendship and
kinship relationships, and there is self-disclosure
in what such friends and kin are willing to reveal
to each other. What kind of close relationship
would it be if there were no physical contact and
no self-disclosure? Such pleasure and disclosure
elements are the nucleus of almost all valued
human relationships. Therefore, since sexuality
possesses, in pleasure and disclosure, the building
blocks of human relationships, it is universally
recognized that sexuality has within itself the com-
ponents that are valued in human relationships.
Not all forms of sexuality are equally valued, but
the relationship potential of sexual encounters is
widely recognized. It is for that reason, I contend,
that sexuality is everywhere viewed as important.
Given this key place of sexuality in human interac-
tion, we will explore how it is woven into the
social fabric of different societies.
UNIVERSAL LINKAGES
In both its logical and empirical aspects, my in-
vestigation supported the view that in all societies
sexuality is linked in some fashion to three
elements of the social structure: (a) marital
jealousy, (b) gender role power, and (c) beliefs
236 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
about normality. These three areas are subdivi-
sions, respectively, of the broader kinship, power,
and ideological components found in all social
systems. I will try to detail the linkages for each of
these three components of social systems.
The first linkage of sexuality is to marital
jealousy. Here it is proposed that jealousy, on a
macro level, is most accurately seen as a
boundary-maintenance mechanism that aims at
protecting those relationships socially viewed as
important. Since we have already asserted that
sexuality is universally considered important, it
follows that at least some types of sexual relation-
ships will be protected by jealousy boundaries.
Furthermore, since marriage is also everywhere
valued, when one combines sexuality with mar-
riage it surely will produce a relationship viewed
as worthy of protection by jealousy boundaries.
In case you may question whether sexuality out-
side of marriage is deemed important enough to
deserve the protection of jealousy customs, think
about jealousy in homosexual and heterosexual
cohabiting relationships. Recent evidence in the
United States indicates that jealousy is strongly
present in such relationships (Blumstein and
Schwartz, 1983). On a social-psychological or
micro level, jealousy is a negative emotional
response to a felt threat from an outsider to a
valued relationship. The society we live in informs
us as to which relationships are supposed to have
the boundary mechanism of jealousy. Some forms
of sexual relationships are always among those
relationships that societies choose to protect.
I investigated those cultures such as the Lepcha
and the Greenland Eskimos that others have as-
serted are lacking in marital sexual jealousy
(Gorer, 1967; O'Kelly, 1980; Sanders, 1956). My
examination led me to the conclusion that despite
the claims of some, all these cultures do indeed
have marital sexual jealousy. To be sure, there are
variations in the jealousy boundaries, for in many
nonindustrial societies extramarital sexuality with
people other than one's mate is permitted. For ex-
ample, in many societies the levirate custom per-
mits such extramarital relationships with an older
brother's wife. But even there the relation must be
carried out with low social visibility and great
tact. In such cases there still clearly are boundaries
protecting the priority of the marital relationship,
even though some extramarital sexual partners are
on occasion permitted.
Jealousy is obviously present in such societies,
and although it is structured somewhat differently
than in the Western world, it surely is tied to
marital sexuality. My investigation led me to con-
clude that although the intensity varies, sexual
jealousy protecting the priority of marriage would
appear to be, in some form, universally present.
There is a common feeling that sexual relation-
ships outside the marriage may be intrusive and
may violate the priority of the marital dyad. The
self-disclosure and pleasure aspects of sexuality in
a stable relationship endow it with the aura of a
private confidence that should not be casually dis-
rupted. Thus, even when extramarital relation-
ships are legitimated, they occur as controlled
satellites of the more important marital dyad.
In line with some of my theoretical propositions
on power, I concluded that those who were more
powerful in economic and political terms would
be more likely to react to jealousy with greater
violence and aggression. I tested this out by com-
paring male and female jealousy patterns under
various conditions of gender inequality. The
results indicated considerable support for my
beliefs. Males were much more likely to express
aggression in response to jealousy, in accord with
the extent to which they were more powerful than
females. Females in a great many cultures most
often responded to jealousy-provoking situations
with depression rather than aggression against
others.
The second societal linkage area for sexuality is
to gender roles, particularly in relation to the
relative power of each gender. It follows from the
assertion that sexuality is viewed as important that
those in power will seek to get as much of this
valued element as their culture would permit. The
underlying proposition is that those in power con-
trol whatever the society views as important, and
thus, since sexuality is viewed as important, those
in power will have greater access to that area of
social life. Further, since in most societies males
have greater power than females, it follows that
males will have greater sexual rights than females.
In testing out the relationship of sexual rights to
male power in the Standard Sample, I found that
patrilineal societies (tracing descent only through
the paternal grandfather's line) displayed more
male as opposed to female sexual rights than did
matrilineal societies (tracing descent only through
the maternal grandmother's line). I also found
that when, in addition to tracing descent through
the male line, males lived together, there was a
greater likelihood of a low evaluation of the
female gender. Social systems that promote com-
mon male residence seem to lower the status of
females. This lower status may well be a result of
increased male power in such societies. Relevant
to this power linkage are my findings, previously
cited, concerning the relationship of the relative
power of each gender to the likelihood of an ag-
SEXUALITY
gressive response to marital jealousy. That finding
is congruent with the role of power as a key deter-
minant of sexual customs.
The third societal linkage of sexuality is to
ideology. I use ideology here to refer to the
strongly held, shared beliefs about fundamental
human nature that exist in a society. Such beliefs
are relevant to sexuality, for they imply how equal
or nonequal females are to males and how similar
their sexual rights should be. Sexual ideologies are
subtypes of the general ideology in a society, and
they revolve about two dimensions: (a) overall
gender equality and (b) the relative sexual per-
missiveness allowed to each gender.
Regarding sexual ideologies, the evidence from
recent studies indicates that females in America
have endorsed overall gender equality in political,
economic, religious, and family institutions more
fully than they have accepted equality in terms of
sexual rights. This pattern is most obvious in the
degree to which females as opposed to males still
hesitate to endorse casual or body-centered sex-
uality (Lottes, 1985). In contrast to this are the
findings that males have accepted sexual equality
for both genders but show some reluctance to en-
dorse overall gender equality. The trend between
males and females is toward a convergence of
these beliefs, but clearly we are still in transition.
Other cultures reflect these same differences,
which are related to the fact that males are in most
societies more powerful in the political, economic,
and other institutions and thus believe that this is
a "natural" state of affairs. They resist giving up
their power and accepting full gender equality,
even though they favor promoting greater accep-
tance of sexual behavior on the part of females.
All these perspectives appear to be logically based
on Western beliefs about sexuality and gender
concerning what is "natural" for males and
females to do. We believe it is natural for females
to be less interested in casual sexuality, and socio-
biologists are quick to think up underlying evolu-
tionary advantages to account for this condition.
Their theories overlook those cultures where the
human female doesn't appear to have such
beliefs. Although there are general trends in our
society toward new types of gender roles and new
sexual orientations, some hesitancies about male
and female role changes seem to reflect our con-
formity to older ideological beliefs. Ideology
seems to be important in delaying as well as pro-
moting change, both in the direction of those in
power and in opposing directions. These findings
are one reason why I have modified the orthodox
Marxian position that ideologies basically support
those groups that are in power.
237
I assume that in general it is our ideological
beliefs that promote our popular perspectives on
sexual normality. We can see this clearly in our
views in the Western world about homosexuality.
There homosexual behavior is viewed as competi-
tive with heterosexuality, and accordingly it is
condemned, restricted, and viewed as "ab-
normal." I speak here of homosexual behavior
because there is so little cross-cultural evidence on
homosexual preference. In some parts of the
world, as in the New Guinea Highlands, homo-
sexual behavior is viewed as a pathway to hetero-
sexuality and is widely supported (Herdt, 1981).
Herdt reports that, in the Sambia, preadolescent
boys are taught to fellate older unmarried males
and ingest their sperm in order to be able to pro-
duce their own sperm in adulthood and thereby be
able to impregnate their wives. After marriage,
Herdt estimates, over 95%o of these males give up
their homosexual behavior because they perceive
such behavior as predominantly a pathway to the
heterosexuality that they now have achieved in
marriage.
In such a society the sexual ideology would
judge homosexual behavior as not competitive
with heterosexuality but as supportive of it. The
explanatory proposition that applies to the Sam-
bia case as well as to societies in the West would
be that sexuality is socially approved in accord
with the degree to which it is seen as supportive of
accepted gender and kinship roles. People in Sam-
bia and in the United States do not agree on how
homosexual behavior and heterosexuality relate,
but both societies seem to afford priority to what-
ever sexual relationships they see as supportive of
the gender and kinship roles in that society.
Another interpretation concerning homosexu-
ality emerged from my examination of the Stan-
dard Sample. I found that homosexual behavior
was highest in those societies wherein the mother
was heavily involved with infants and the father
was not so involved. A Freudian would look at
such a situation and claim that it was the psycho-
dynamics of a dominant mother and an absent
father that led to homosexuality. My interpreta-
tion of these same data is different. I see the close
mother and distant father involvement with in-
fants as an indirect measure of male power. Such
gender roles reflect a male-dominant society in
which men are occupied in the political and eco-
nomic institutions and thus are only peripherally
involved in child care. That type of institutional
involvement creates a narrow, segregated male
gender role while at the same time giving little op-
portunity for the very young male child to interact
with male models. Further, such narrow male
238 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
roles will likely lead to more males finding such a
restricted role uninteresting or difficult to achieve.
It may be in part from such pressures that in-
creased nonconformist homosexual behavior oc-
curs in societies like our own.
Note, however, that in societies like the Sam-
bia, homosexual behavior would not be so likely
to function as an alternative to heterosexuality for
those who are unhappy with the narrow male
gender role. In the Sambia type of society, homo-
sexual behavior would be an expected part of the
sexual upbringing model and not a deviant choice.
I believe that homosexual behavior may be en-
couraged by the close male groupings and living
arrangements that go along with such male-
dominant societies. We have evidence that among
rhesus monkeys, bringing up infants with only
their own genetic sex increases the likelihood of
homosexual behavior (Goldfoot, Wallen, Neff,
McBriar, and Goy, 1984). My point here is that a
cross-cultural and sociological approach affords
interpretations that are at odds with our culture's
traditional views of homosexuality and its rela-
tionship to heterosexuality. The cross-cultural ap-
proach forces us to consider other explanations of
even those sexual customs we may have felt we
fully understood. It surely calls into question the
validity of many of our traditional theories of
homosexuality that clearly do not apply across
cultures.
Our common views concerning what is "nor-
mal" sexually can easily influence our scientific
views. This may be particularly applicable to
those who provide therapy. The case of premature
ejaculation is illustrative. A generation ago very
few people were going to therapists for treatment
of premature ejaculation. The concept of pre-
mature ejaculation is based upon an equalitarian
view of heterosexual coital relationships. It is
predominantly when the female's orgasm is of
concern that a male will view himself as a pre-
mature ejaculator. He is "premature" in terms of
the cultural ideal that his partner should have a
coital orgasm if he does. In cultures with a more
prominent double standard, such concerns are not
so strongly felt and thus do not drive people to
enter therapy. In some societies, as East Bay in
Melanesia, males are expected to reach orgasm in
15 to 30 seconds or else it is felt that they have a
problem of "delayed ejaculation" (Davenport,
1965). Such "problems" appear to be less a mat-
ter of a disrupted personality system than a matter
of conformity to sexual norms. Finally, note that
in our society a female who reaches orgasm in
seconds after vaginal penetration is not con-
sidered to be prematurely orgasmic; rather, she is
often praised as "responsive." This may well be
so because in male-dominated societies there is lit-
tle cultural concern that she will leave her partner
unsatisfied, and her speedy orgasm may satisfy his
desire to view himself as a "good" lover.
Think about the way that premature ejacula-
tion is commonly treated and it will become even
more obvious how our cultural values and not any
scientific criterion of "abnormality" define this
behavior. The squeeze technique is the most com-
mon method used to "correct" the problem of
premature ejaculation. This highly effective
method involves the female partner squeezing the
penis when the man is close to ejaculation, there-
by stopping the ejaculation and teaching the man
that he can control it. To those raised in our
culture, where heterosexual coitus is the epitome
of sexuality, this seems a natural solution to the
problem. But think about the alternative ap-
proaches that could be suggested to a client by a
therapist.
The therapist could inform the client that the
male can aid the female in reaching climax orally
or manually, either before or after his orgasm.
That would be a way of "equalizing" the
orgasmic outcomes. But our society teaches that
coitus should be the central sexual act, and most
often both partners want orgasm in coitus. To be
sure, young people today are somewhat less fo-
cused on coitus only, but the emphasis is still
there. Freudian analysts and others may well
define as abnormal any focus on oral, anal, or
manual sexuality in preference to or equal with
coitus. It is easy to speculate why Western
societies have placed such great importance upon
this aspect of sexual behavior. Because it is the
way to produce future soldiers, servants, workers,
and citizens, many societies that seek power
emphasize coitus.
Perhaps of equal interest is the fact that in the
name of equality we promote a sexual act, coitus,
that clearly produces orgasm more easily in the
male than in the female. Many women report
much more difficulty in achieving orgasm coitally
than they have in oral or manual sexual acts
(Masters and Johnson, 1966, 1970). Thus, ironi-
cally, the therapy for producing orgasmic equality
involves promoting a sexual act not equally suited
to female orgasm. The fact that females also
prefer orgasm in coitus does not dispute this state-
ment but merely points to how females have been
indoctrinated into a male type of sexuality.
The significance of our examination of pre-
mature ejaculation is that it demonstrates how we
can politicize therapy. To be sure, many younger
therapists would not call premature ejaculation a
disorder, an abnormality, or a dysfunction, but
many others such as Freudian analysts would. The
SEXUALITY
fact of the matter is that we lack in therapy a clear
scientific standard for declaring some actions ab-
normal. Because of that the ideological beliefs
about abnormality that are commonly held in the
society may easily be adopted by the therapist and
used as if they were based on scientific evidence.
This possibility is most likely to occur in an area
as emotionally charged as is sexuality. The
strength of our views concerning the wrongness of
certain sexual acts may make it easy for us to feel
that there must be some scientific basis for calling
such an act abnormal.
As a step in the direction of not allowing our
private ideological beliefs to seduce us into believ-
ing that they constitute a scientific basis for classi-
fying certain sexual acts as abnormal, I would
suggest that we hesitate to label as abnormal any
sexual act that can be found as an accepted act in
another culture. By the same token, those sexual
acts that we find to be unacceptable in all cultures
may provide a starting point for a theory of
psychological abnormality. The sadistic sexual
murderer would be performing such a universally
condemned sexual act. I know of no culture that
would accept such an action. Even with this con-
ception of normality, we must be careful not to
assume that no new forms of sexual acts can be
normal. But using such a cross-cultural basis
prevents us from simply adopting our own socie-
ty's view of sexual normality and endowing it with
scientific validity. This approach is not without its
problems, but it does at least demand evidence
and reasoning before a particular act can be
labeled abnormal.
There may well be other scientific bases for
defining a sexual act as abnormal, but until it is
clearly established as such by scientific evidence
and reasoning, we had better not use such labels
freely if we are to avoid the politicization of
therapy. If we wish, we can as private citizens still
strongly condemn and put people in jail for many
sexual acts our culture does not approve of. But
that is different from saying that we can scientifi-
cally show that those people are "sick." Such
people may simply be nonconformists, for what-
ever reason.
For scientists or therapists to use the label
"paraphilia" or "dysfunctional" for all sexual
acts that are socially disapproved of or unusual is
to undermine the scientific basis of their ap-
proach. I would suggest it is better to call such
clients nonconformists and then search for scien-
tific theories that can measure the "illness" com-
ponent, if any, of their noncomformity. I do not
go as far as Thomas Szasz did in calling mental ill-
ness a myth, for I do not reject the possibility of
finding a scientific basis for defining abnormality
239
such as the one I suggest, that is, the inability to
perform in an acceptable fashion in any type of
known society. But I do agree with Szasz that a
great many of the acts we today label as abnormal
are simply acts of nonconformity that happen to
upset other people (Szasz, 1974). A therapist who
labels his or her client as a paraphiliac or as
dysfunctional is promoting a desire for a "cure."
Few clients would want to maintain a paraphilia
or a dysfunction. Calling the client a nonconfor-
mist opens up more clearly the possibility of not
changing. The therapist could try to give insight
into the range of choices that are open and also
help the client understand the societal basis of the
conformity desire. Such an approach might not
satisfy people's desire to condemn what they
disapprove of, but would it not be a more objec-
tive form of therapy?
Much of the same politicization of sexuality oc-
curs in our reactions to erotica. There, too, the
terms "abnormal" and "sick" are commonly
used for those acts that are unpopular in some
group. This radical feminist distinction between
erotica and pornography is more a private moral
judgment of what one likes than a scientific
distinction. Pornography has become a "bad"
word, just like fornication and adultery. Social
scientists have stopped using words like fornica-
tion and adultery because of their moral implica-
tions and have instead spoken of premarital inter-
course and extramarital intercourse in order to
minimize the intrusion of private moral biases.
Many of the scientific researchers on erotica have
done the same and are not using the term por-
nography because it implies only "bad" erotica to
some people, such as the radical feminists. In-
stead, many researchers have elected to use the
word erotica for all materials designed to arouse
one sexually. Individual persons can express any
private judgment about which forms of erotica
they personally prefer or condemn because they
judge it to be subordinating to women, or not
gender equal in the relationship portrayed, or just
plain obnoxious. But such subjective distinctions
do not serve as a scientific basis for classifying
erotica.
There is much misinformation on erotica
because of the strong emotions associated with it.
The amount of violence in X-rated films has been
exaggerated by some. For example, a recent anal-
ysis of 650 X-rated videotapes found that only
10% could be classified as showing "deviational
sadistic, violent and victimized sex" (Rimmer,
1984). In another recent study, it was reported
that films rated PG and R have many more
murders and rapes than do X-rated films
(Radecki, 1984). My cross-cultural analysis indi-
240 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
cates that attitudes favorable to gender equality
go with an acceptance of a wide range of erotica.
My analysis further indicates that even the rate of
nonsexual violence is not a good predictor of rape
rates in the United States and in other cultures.
We need careful and not cavalier judgments in
this area if we are to be scientifically informed.
We need to be aware of the possible substitution
of private ideological judgments of "abnormali-
ty" for scientific judgments of the nature of
erotica. This analysis of erotica is developed much
further in my recent book (Reiss, 1986, chap. 7).
My point throughout this discussion of erotica,
homosexuality, and premature ejaculation has
been that sexuality is linked with the strong emo-
tional ideologies of a society. We need to distin-
guish our private judgments from our scientific
judgments. The scientific explanations can act as
a clarification of our private judgments, if people
make the effort to become aware of them.
THE OVERALL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
My explanation of sexuality began with the
assertion that our ability to participate in sexual
relationships is basically a social product that is
learned much as we learn how to develop friend-
ship and love relationships. This is not to deny
that biological or psychological factors are rele-
vant. They are surely relevant if you ask questions
focusing upon psychological and biological sys-
tems. But I am writing as a sociologist and I pose
my questions in terms of how we can explain simi-
larities and differences among human societies.
On such questions I believe sociological theory
can provide the answers better than can any other
discipline. My own approach has particularly
emphasized comparative sociology, which in my
judgment is very similar to cultural anthropology.
Sexuality is everywhere viewed as important
because of its social bonding power. This ability is
based predominantly on the physical pleasure and
self-disclosure components that at least to some
degree most often accompany sexual acts. It is
such bonding that is encouraged by societies in
relationships such as marriage that the society
wishes to support. In this sense, sexual bonding
promotes the formation of kinship ties and helps
form the gender role concepts of a society.
All societies have customs that place boundary
mechanisms around important relationships such
as sexual relations in marriage. This is ac-
complished by means of jealousy norms that are
taught to group members. The more powerful
members seek to maximize their control of that
which is important in their group. Hence, the
more powerful one gender is over the other, the
more likely it is that those persons also possess
greater sexual rights and privileges.
Our sexual ideologies support as "natural"
those sexual customs that embody the society's
ideological views concerning our fundamental
human nature and condemn as "unnatural" those
sexual customs that do not conform to these
beliefs. A scientific theory is expected to develop
verifiable indices of abnormality and not simply
to accept the popular views concerning abnormal
behavior or attitudes. One fundamental basis of
our personal ideological judgment seems to be
whether it is felt that the sexual practice in ques-
tion will support or harm our kinship and gender
systems. Note that this social opinion may be fac-
tually incorrect. For example, many Westerners
would say that homosexuality must be competi-
tive with heterosexuality-a person pursues either
one or the other. Not only is this a stereotype of
our own sexual behavior, but the Sambia and
other similar cultures illustrate how a society may
judge homosexual behavior to be essential to the
creation of heterosexual behavior. One way to
judge the worth of a scientific theory of sexuality
is the degree to which it extends our vision beyond
the cultural blinders we are each given by our
society.
I have noted above that the three specific parts
of a social system that are always linked to sex-
uality are marital jealousy, gender role power,
and concepts of normality. More generally, these
three linkage areas are located in the social struc-
tures of kinship, power, and ideology. Changes in
sexual customs would occur to the extent that
these areas were affected. Clearly, our economic,
political, religious, and family institutions are in-
volved in any such changes. Perhaps the economic
system is more flexibile than the others men-
tioned, because it is designed more for pragmatic
subsistence outcomes than for moral guidance.
But all institutions have a possible role in social
change, and their causal influence should not be
prejudged. The causal directions may well work
two ways, with sexual customs on occasion initiat-
ing change in basic institutional areas. To illus-
trate, the greater sexual activity by young people
in the 1965-75 decade was, I believe, one major
cause of the change in the political acceptability of
contraception and abortion services for young
people.
In my book I have devised 25 specific proposi-
tions that afford a predictive basis for under-
standing social change and the precise ways in
which sexuality may be linked to kinship, power,
and ideological structures in particular types of
societies (Reiss, 1986). These propositions predict
SEXUALITY
FIG. 1. SOCIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
Source: Reiss, 1986: 214. Reprinted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
the conditions under which certain variations in
the linkages of sexuality to the three key areas of
the social structure would occur. I have referred
to a goodly number of them informally in this
paper. Figure 1 further illustrates the basic theo-
retical ideas I have been addressing.
Note that the causal direction as indicated in
this diagram goes two ways and involves causal
relationships among the variables on each of the
concentric circles as well as between the various
factors on different concentric circles. One starts
with sexual behavior at the center of the diagram
and notes that it leads to the outcomes of "sexual
importance" and "sexual bonding." These in
turn are causally related to the linkages to kinship,
power, and ideology and to the creation of sexual
scripts, noted in the next concentric circle. Final-
ly, at the outer circle are the social institutions
that are both shaped by these other factors and
that in turn shape them. This diagram is simply a
241
graphic version of the general way these various
factors relate to each other. It is no substitute for
the specific propositions I have formulated that
explain societal variations in detail. Rather, this
diagram illustrates the logical foundation for my
sociological theory of human sexuality.
The empirical foundation for the basic logic
and the specific propositions that explain similari-
ty and variation in sexual customs are surely not
complete. I have discussed some of the evidence in
this paper, and much more is contained in my
book. Many concepts require better measurement
and further clarification. This is particularly true
for the crucial concept of power in relation to sex-
uality. Evidence on several of the variables in my
propositions is yet to be gathered. At this point,
parts of the theory rest on its logical and reason-
ing foundations. This article puts forth the overall
logical conception of my explanation of sexuality
as it currently stands.
242 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
Perhaps of greatest importance, this theory
allows us to answer questions that prior ap-
proaches could not adequately handle. Those fun-
damental questions, concerning the explanation
of why various groups differ or are alike in their
sexual customs, are important to us both as indi-
viduals and as social scientists. In this new socio-
logical explanation, I am not obliged to nor
limited by the belief systems of older theories,
even though I do not totally reject everything they
assert. This is a fresh start and one that is rooted
predominantly in the assumptions of sociology.
As we utilize this explanation, we will have
more to share with scientists in biology and
psychology who have for a longer period of time
been working on explanations of human sexuality
that are relevant to the type of questions they pose
concerning personality and biological systems. Of
course, interrelationships are possible among dis-
ciplines. But sociology is a young science, and for
now I believe it will yield the greatest scientific
understanding if we nurture it separately and
thereby develop its ability to explain the place of
the social system in our sexual lives.
REFERENCES
Berndt, Ronald, and Catherine Berndt. 1951. Sexual
Behavior in Western Arnhem Land. New York: Vik-
ing Fund.
Blumstein, Philip, and Pepper Schwartz. 1983. Ameri-
can Couples. New York: Morrow.
Christensen, Harold T. 1962. "Value behavior discre-
pancies regarding premarital coitus in three Western
cultures." American Sociological Review 27: 66-74.
Davenport, William. 1965. "Sexual patterns and their
regulation in a society of the South West Pacific."
Chap. 8 in Frank A. Beach (ed.), Sex and Behavior.
New York: John Wiley.
Delamater, John, and Patricia MacCorquodale. 1979.
Premarital Sexuality: Attitudes, Relationships,
Behavior. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Ehrmann, Winston W. 1959. Premarital Dating Behav-
ior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagnon, John H., and William Simon. 1973. Sexual
Conduct. Chicago: Aldine.
Goldfoot, David A., K. Wallen, D. A. Neff, M. C. Mc-
Briar, and R. W. Goy. 1984. "Social influences upon
the display of sexually dimorphic behavior in rhesus
monkeys: Isosexual rearing." Archives of Sexual
Behavior 13: 395-412.
Gorer, Geoffrey. 1967. Himalayan Village: An Account
of the Lepchas of Sikkim (2nd ed.). New York: Basic
Books.
Herdt, Gilbert. 1981. Guardians of the Flutes: Idioms
of Masculinity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Levy, Robert I. 1973. Tahitians: Mind and Experience
in the Society Islands. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lottes, Ilsa. 1985. "The use of cluster analysis to deter-
mine belief patterns." Journal of Sex Research 21:
405-421.
Masters, William H., and Virginia F. Johnson. 1966.
Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown.
Masters, William H., and Virginia F. Johnson. 1970.
Human Sexual Inadequacy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Murdock, George P., and Douglas R. White. 1969.
"Standard Cross Cultural Sample." Ethnology 8:
329-369.
O'Kelly, Charlotte G. 1980. Women and Men in Socie-
ty. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
Radecki, Thomas. 1984. Quoted in "Pornography:
Love or death?" Film Comment 20 (November/
December): 43-45.
Reiss, Ira L. 1960. Premarital Sexual Standards in
America. New York: Free Press.
Reiss, Ira L. 1967. The Social Context of Premarital
Sexual Permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Reiss, Ira L. 1986. Journey into Sexuality: An Explora-
tory Voyage. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Reiss, Ira L., Ronald E. Anderson, and G. C. Spon-
augle. 1980. "A multivariate model of the determi-
nants of extramarital sexual permissiveness." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 42: 395-411.
Reiss, Ira L., and Brent C. Miller. 1979. "Heterosexual
permissiveness: A theoretical analysis." Chap. 4 in
Wesley Burr, Reuben Hill, F. Ivan Nye and Ira L.
Reiss (eds.), Contemporary Theories about the Fami-
ly (Vol. 1). New York: Free Press.
Rimmer, Robert H. 1984. The X-Rated Videotape
Guide. New York: Arlington House.
Sanders, Irwin T. (ed.). 1956. Societies around the
world. New York: Dryden.
Simon, William, and John H. Gagnon. 1984. "Sexual
scripts: Permanence and change." Society 22
(November /December): 53-60.
Singer, Barry. 1985. "A comparison of evolutionary
and environmental theories of erotic response (Part
1): Structural features." Journal of Sex Research 21:
229-257.
Stacey, Judith. 1983. Patriarchy and Socialist Revolu-
tion in China. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Szasz, Thomas. 1974. The Myth of Mental Illness (rev.
ed.). New York: Harper and Row.