Tag: sexuality

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

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

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”