Questions:
1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?
2. D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?


In Colonial America, the purpose of sexual relations was reproduction. Any sexual acts committed for a purpose other than reproduction was punishable. This article aims to rid people of the misconception that Puritans were prude and wished to suppress sexual desires, but that they "channel it into what they considered to be the proper setting: as a duty and joy within marriage, and for the purposes of procreation" (16). Adultery, fornication, premarital sex, bestiality, and masturbation were considered illegal and immoral, but in many cases when such acts were committed, the perpetrators were eventually forgiven and allowed back into the church. People learned about sexuality through observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and the church.The general lesson was that sexuality within marriage was a part of adult life, and was expected of everyone. The generally small houses of agricultural society often caused children to observe sexual acts between their parents. Children witness the punishment and public scorn of people who have pre- or extra-marital relations, and therefore learn from an early age that sex should be restricted to marriage. People who deviated from the sexual norm were publicly humiliated, and sometimes even executed. There seemed to be an inconsitency with punishments, in that some people were executed for crimes others were eventually forgiven and welcomed back into the church for. The main goals of regulating sexual deviance was to enforce the system of marital, reproductive sexuality and also to maintain the dominance of whites over blacks (37). Interracial marriages/relations were unacceptable and people were severly punished for them. The idea of a white person and a black person joining an an union of equality was unheard of and absolutely unacceptable. I always considered the Puritans and other early colonists to be very conservative when it came to sex because my history teachers never really mentioned sex until the 1970s or so. This article definately shed new light on Colonial society.

In his second article, D'Emilio claims that people are wrong when they say that homosexuals "are everywhere" and always have been. He also doesn't agree that people are "born gay" and realize it as they grow older. He claims that it was impossible for homosexuals to exist before capitalism evolved, because it was impossible for anyone to survive while living outside of a nuclear family. Women especially were dependent on a male-dominated household, and children were necessary economically, as almost everything was produced from within the household. While homosexual behavior did occur in colonial New England (according to records), it was impossible for one to have a homosexual identity, he claims there was no "social space" for this to occur. As capitalism evolved, people, women in particular, became independent and participation in a nuclear family was no longer a requirement for survival. D'Emilio cites the 1940s and World War II as the start of the "revolution". Women and men found themselves "plucked out" of heterosexual society just as their sexual identities were forming and into "sex-segregated" communities, where they were able to experiment and meet other people in similar situations. He claims that this group of people were the "example set" that caused homosexuality to become more prevalent in the following decades. In this way, D'Emilio claims there are "more of us than there were one hundred years ago", that they havn't been a fixed minority throughout history that merely hid their identities. He claims that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory because capitalism has weakened the bonds of family economically, but has also labeled the family as a source of personal satisfaction, in that it is a source of love and affection. I have some trouble agreeing with D'Emilio's argument. While his analysis of capitalism makes sense, I find myself unable to dispell my previous opinion that homosexual identities have always existed. The fact that homosexual behavior was somewhat prevalent in colonial society contributes to this. D'Emilio claims that homosexual behavior and homosexual identity are different, but I feel that this is not true. Acts of homosexuality are evidence that people would indentify themselves as gay if it was socially acceptable to do so, which it was not until recently, which is why we have seen an increase in homosexualty since the 1950s. Also, D'Emilio is very inconsistent throughout this article, half the time he uses "we", and the other half he tries to be objective by using "gays and lesbians/homosexuals". It is hard to buy into his argument when he is so clearly biased.