Category: 07. April 1

Posted on

Sexuality, Humoralism, and the Environment

Greta LaFleur’s lecture explicitly attempted to trace the relationships between sexuality, human sexual diversity, humoralism, and the environment. In her discussion, Professor LaFleur explained the roles of sexuality in the 18th century as being more directly related to the environment. She explained how humans have adapted sexually as our relationships with both sex and the environments around us have changed. Handmaidens in historical contexts represented the first developments of sexuality before sexuality was a known concept. They acted as a symbol of sexual behavior in a way that marital sex was not. Professor LaFleur argued that there was sex before sexuality, but the prevalence and social relevance of sex implied that sexuality existed. She outlined terms that were associated with sex and sexuality during the 18th century to be socially and culturally relevant in literature although they were not understood as terms of sexuality. These included terms that pointed to sexual exchanges between people that would not be considered as such today including conversation. In reflection, I now realize that in a college context, people might refer to a couple as “talking” when they really mean that the two are “hooking-up” or in sexual relation. This has allowed me to question how much our sexual vocabulary has actually changed.

Continue reading “Sexuality, Humoralism, and the Environment”

Posted on

The Environment of Sexuality

Last week’s lecture by Professor Greta LaFleur touched upon the history of sexuality in relation to the environment. While seemingly a bit less related to the lecture series topic at the beginning, it became clear that the way in which we think about sexuality has undergone a distinct change given the evolution of our planet (even within a relatively short time period) and this did indeed tie well to the presence of the past. Without a doubt, one of the biggest crowd reactions during the lecture came from the introduction (or reintroduction to those who were already familiar with the idea) of the notion that intimate relationships and the search for a partner become more widespread during the colder months of the year. Spending time at Colby, and therefore in one of the colder climates in the country, this likely hit close to home for most students in the lecture yet hearing a bit more about the history of this notion was enlightening when looking to understand sexuality and the environment at a higher level.

As it has been stated already by other reflections on this lecture, it was quite interesting to hear from LaFleur about the effect that environment and geography have on the sexual decisions made by human beings. When she spoke about a locations ability to change the way people view sexuality (and she used Las Vegas as an example), I found myself contemplating the ways in which this has likely gone poorly (and in some places, well), in some specific locations. I would imagine that understanding this, and more so, understanding the ways in which these viewpoints are created, could be of value for places like colleges and universities as they are constantly working on creating positive environments of culture. If sexuality and more specifically behaviors surrounding sexuality change when an individual is in a certain location, I would imagine this process could be seen in other realms of life that can struggle to work well in isolated communities.

Thinking more generally about how this lecture fits into the series, the presence of the past, I found it interesting to consider the continual mention of the environment in the lectures we have had so far. While the topic of the environment (and its continual change due to human impact, global warming, etc.) is a hot topic for good reason, it has been surprising how many of our lecturers have based their explorations of cultural behavior in the environment, using this as a common thread to explain change between past and present. While some lecturers have used the environment to alleviate blame on humanity, LaFleur simply used the environment to process the ways in which humans behave sexually, while giving a short history of how this has likely changed during the time in which we have noticed relevant changes to the planet. This straightforward methodology was much appreciated, and I found it very relevant, as likely there were at least a few examples that everyone in the room could find themselves relating with at some level. As students have already mentioned many times in their responses, the reference to “cuffing season” got the crowds attention for a reason.

Posted on

Humoralism and its’ Relevance Today

Professor LeFleur’s lecture on theories of early sexuality fit perfectly into the theme of our past lectures and guest speakers. Beginning with an analysis of her recently published text, The Natural History of Sexuality in Early America, she explored theories of humoralism as well as climate theory, and overall sexual orientation in regard to these themes. With humoralism, Professor LeFleur illustrated the four corners of emotion as stable, unstable, introverted, and extroverted. I found these first few slides to be very relatable and applicable to the life I am living today. We live in a world that is constantly changing as people are consistently on the move; emotions play such a key role in who we are and how we present ourselves. All the emotions that were listed: quiet, passive, easygoing, sociable, impulsive, touchy, etc. were ones that I find balancing throughout my daily life. I find it hard to believe that you can categorize any one person as just one of these four characteristics. Emotions change every second; people are subject to change at any moment in time, though I did enjoy Professor LeFleur’s overall argument. I was also intrigued by Professor LeFleur’s point of humoral theory. This theory is the idea that the human body was a “porous envelope”, and therefore was deeply vulnerable to the impact and influence of the environment. She explored the theory of “cuffing season” to further this point. Cuffing season is the theory that as the weather gets colder, people are more likely to seek a ‘mate’ and couple up (with the inverse also being true). This is a theory that is completely reliant on the status of the surrounding environment. Logically, one would state that more couple are single closer to the equator. Though is idea is difficult to prove entirely, the theory holds its’ own. All of this tied into one of her final points which was climate theory. Climate theory was the idea that particular bodily arrangements and types, particular characters, and qualities were endemic to (and perhaps produced by) the relative heat or cool of different regions. This is just another form of studying sexuality in relation to the environment that has been reviewed and looked at numerous times over the years. Overall, I really enjoyed Professor LeFleur’s lecture as it explored ideas and theories that are applicable and relevant today.

Posted on

Location Impacting Sexuality

Professor Greta LaFleur’s lecture on the history of sexuality in relation to the environment was really thought-provoking and tied back into many of the previous lectures and discussions we have had throughout this course while also making me think about topics in ways I truly hadn’t ever done before. This particular lecture was really interesting to consider in relation to our current social and political climate because people are still very close-minded about gender and sexuality. Considering in Systema Naturae, Linnaeus taxonomized natural plant species based on their sexual organs visibility, and this theme still remains present in our contemporary age as people often unfairly label people as a certain gender based entirely on their sexual reproductive organs and not based on how they choose to identify. We must keep in mind that Linnaeus was attempting to explain the creation of species as created by god but regardless he was fairly accurate even when viewing his words in our modern age.

 

Dr. LaFleur went into depth explaining the humoral theory’s popularity and how many people thought that our human lives and behaviors were dependent on the environment we were born or lived our lives in. This is something clearly I had noticed people do in our modern age, but it seemed slightly racist to generalize entire groups of people into behavior types when in reality each person has their own behaviors and tendencies. Regardless the popularity of this mindset to this day is undeniable and people still clearly think like this at least to some extent just because of how people are represented in the media and online. For example there were four categories for humans, which were Americanus, Europaeus, Asiaticus, and Afer which were described each in their own specific way. Americanus people were said to behave in obstinate and free ways, while Asiaticus supposedly behaved in severe ways and Afer behaved as women without shame. Although this all seemed to further reinforce this racist line of thinking, it is undeniable how relevant this is to our contemporary age when so many people still view other races and people in similar ways of thinking. It is very interesting to think about this in terms of our natural environment as well and our attempts to sexualize various plants such as the Venus Fly Trap. Although this makes it seem easy to blame Linnaeus for this line of thinking, he was only one of several people labeling things similarly or accordingly to humoral theory.

 

Another relevant and interesting idea to consider in relation to all of this was the idea that people often reproduce and get into relationships during the colder months of the year and then tend to end relationships during the warmer times of the year. This by itself clearly implies that our environment around us greatly impacts our sexuality and behaviors to the point that it impacts our relationships. This led to a discussion how different locations such as Las Vegas, can alter people’s opinions on sexuality for a time being because of the atmosphere. This is really interesting to consider in relation to the humoral theory because although it seems to generalize entire groups of people it is also somewhat grounded in fact that locations impact how we act sexually and how we behave.

Posted on

Climate Theory of Sexuality

I found Greta LaFleur’s presentation “Toward an Environmental Theory of Early Sexuality” on April 1 quite enlightening. I believe the topics she discussed are very relevant in our modern day discussions and as someone who has recently taken a Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies course at Colby I found that it connected and intertwined to what we would talk about in class. I also thought it was very interesting how she connected the theory of sexuality to the environment and climate, since that is a theme we have been seeing in nearly all of our Presence of the Past lectures (unsure if that was some kind of necessary requirement to be included in the lecture series but regardless it’s nice how they all connect in some way).

The theories Greta LaFleur covers were interesting because I had never heard of some of them before. I like that she defined all the theories before she went into detail on them, for that was very helpful as an audience member. She started with Humoral Theory which understood the human form as a “porous envelope” and was vulnerable. She then went into Climate Theory which is the idea that particular bodily arrangements and types, particular characters, and particular qualities were endemic to (and perhaps produced by) the relative heat or cool of different regions. I found this theory most interesting because it was the most relevant to modern times. For instance, within this theory she talked about “cuffing season” which is where people get into relationships in the colder months and then break up during the warmer months. (I still remember David Greene telling us on our first day that Colby has a high marriage rate, probably because it gets cold here—cuffing season!). She also talked about the Geography of Questionable Sexual Decisions which means that people’s sexual decisions change based on where they are located. The modern day example of this was Vegas, and what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. I also found this example interesting, because we have all heard that phrase before but don’t really think about the underlying theories of it. That example was also interesting when someone in the audience asked about how environmental things and geographic locations could have an effect on people. Greta LaFleur explained that architecture, state, or location, can all have an effect on people and their view on sex and sexuality. Once again, an example of this was Vegas and that the atmosphere and environment of Vegas may have that effect on altering people’s views on sexuality for while they are there.

All of these examples were enlightening, for it allowed us to see that sexual decisions can be the products of the environment around us. Also, the presentation pulled real life examples to make it fun and interesting to listen to. She ended by saying “ how sex becomes sexuality and how sexuality became human” and i thought that was an interesting way to end the presentation, wrapping up everything. I thoroughly enjoyed Greta LaFleur’s presentation and think it was an excellent addition to our presence of the past lecture series.

Posted on

Revising Our Perception of Sexuality

Greta LaFleur’s lecture explored the relationship between the environment and sexuality. She explained how sex was understood in the 18th century and how that is related to our environments. She went on to say that back then, there was an intimate relationship between the environment and humans, who were thought to be “porous envelops” based on the humoral theory that was present at the time.  Carl Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae, attempted to create a taxonomy for Homo sapiens based on geography. It was thought that race was a direct product of our surroundings, and that race was a malleable thing based on where one was raised. Each taxonomy had assigned characteristics that describes their physical appearance, temperament, and, in some cases, their sexuality. This classification categorized darker skinned women as more sexually promiscuous and lighter women as more conservative with their bodies. Through this perception of race, LaFleur links together race and the perception of sexuality.

This link between race and sexuality is still seen today. The notion that darker skinned women are more sexually active than lighter skinned women is a narrative that is played out today in the media. In addition, the fetishization of asian women who are seen as exotic and reserved is also seen in popular culture. This differentiation creates divides for women of different races. Black women are often portrayed with high sex drives and are objectified my mass media, while white women are portrayed as pure and modest. In addition, certain sex acts that have also been linked with darker skin are consequently criminalized and looked down upon. Since the roots of these ideas can be traced back to the 1600’s, before we had developed vocabulary to talk about sexuality, I think it is about time to revise our perception of sexuality, particularly when in reference to race. The notion that women’s sex drive or sexual preference is based on race is archaic and outdated.

Even back in the 17th century, these narratives were being spread to the mass public through different types of literature. Barbary Captivity Narratives are stories about white sailors captured and sold on the Islamic slave trade. LaFleur brought up this form of literature as one example of mass media that perpetrates the overtly sexualized image of darker skinned women.

We see the vestiges of this today. We see how even after centuries of time, our subconscious are not able to readily separate race from sexuality. We see how we so easily conflate the two and add another dimension into the oppression of women of color.

I am curious to see if there are similar narratives about queer narratives. In modern day, we see a lack of representation in the queer community from people of color, and I find it interesting that, generally speaking, many associate being gay with sexual promiscuity, yet we don’t always associate being gay with being a person of color. I wonder why this differentiation between queer and straight sexualities and their respective relationship with race came about, and how we can work to ensure that this relationship dissolves and we created two separate identities.

Posted on

Sexual Politics of Racial Difference

Professor Greta LaFleur’s lecture, “Toward an Environmental Theory of Early Sexuality” was very enlightening because it explores the history of sex and how the meaning of it has changed throughout history and how it relates to the environment.

Towards the beginning of Professor LaFleur’s lecture, she explains and breaks down Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae. This book is one of the major works written by Carl Linnaeus and in the book, he attempts to describe and understand the natural world as a reflection of the logic of God’s creation. His sexual system, where species with the same number of stamens were treated in the same group. For humans, this is broken up into four categories: Americanus, Europaues, Asiaticus, and Afer. Each of these having their own personality type to match their physical description. Americanus is described as reddish, choleric, erect and behaves obstinate, merry, free. Europaues is described as white, sanguine, muscular and behaves gentle, acute, inventive. Asiaticus is described as sallow, melancholy, stiff and behaves severe, haughty, avaricious. Lastly Afer is described as Black, phlegmatic, relaxed and behaves like women without shame. I found these descriptions very easy because these ideas still persist to this day.  In our culture, today white women are seen as these gentle beings full of purity and in need of protection. While on the other hand Black women are seen as sexual objects that act, who behave in ways that are portrayed as provocative.  This ideology is very apparent in media when analyzing the different portrayal of Black and white women in cinema. It is interesting to me how Greta LaFleur explores how these stereotypes began so long ago but are still upheld even till this day.  She even explains the sexual politics of racial difference and why one group is shamed for their sensuality.

During Professor Greta LaFleur’s lecture, she also explains some work done on sexual theory. The first being Humoral Theory which understood the human form as a “porous envelope” that was deeply vulnerable. The second theory being Climate Theory, which is the idea that particular bodily arrangements and types, particular characters, and particular qualities were endemic to (and perhaps produced by) the relative hear or cool of different regions. She goes more in depth with the second theory and gives examples of the phenomenon in a modern context. The first example was cuffing season, which is when people get in relationships during the colder months and then break up during the hotter months. The second example was the Geography of Questionably Sexual Decisions which basically states that in a different place people vary in the sexual choices they make.  I found both of these concepts really interesting because it connects how some of our sexual decisions are products of the environment around us.

During the questions and answers portion of the discussion, someone in the audience asked if Professor LaFleur could expand on how the environment and things like macrogeographic could have a certain effect on people. She explained how things like architecture or state location could alter the way citizens view sex and sexuality. I found this to be really interesting. For the most part, I believe it because phrases like “What happens in Vegas, stay in Vegas exists”, but I’m curious as to the extent of influence the environment has.

Posted on

Categorizing the Fear of Difference

One member of the audience asked for elaboration on the archaic suggestion that different types of humans are associated with various plants and animals. This was in reference to Linnaeus’ eighteenth-century work, Systema Naturae, wherein the author taxonomized all aspects of nature, including humans by varieties. Specifically, the question evoked thoughts about Linnaeus’ sexual system of botany, which categorized plants by the visibility of their sexual organs, among other things. This is a good example depicting that even when considering and studying plants, humanity still often prescribes to a fixed dichotomy between male and female, and shoehorns that application onto species and things where it may not fit. Continue reading “Categorizing the Fear of Difference”

Posted on

The Environment and how it Affects Sexuality

Greta LaFleur, an Associate professor of American Studies at Yale University, gave a lecture titled, “Toward an Environmental Theory of Early Sexuality.” Her talk explores how eighteenth- century natural history- the study of organic life in its environment- actually provided the intellectual foundations of the later development of the scientific study of sex. She started by explaining her first of two books called “The Natural History of Sexuality in Early America” which brings together the history of sexuality and early environmental studies. It explores how sexual behaviors were understood in the eighteenth-century world. Her 2nd book is currently in the making and delves into the relationship of cultural and legal responses to sexual violence to the history of sexuality.

Continue reading “The Environment and how it Affects Sexuality”