Phallocentricism, female penile choices, and the use of sex toys in Ghana

Sexualities ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 1127-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Yaw Fiaveh

Although the penis forms an important aspect of sexual practices, we know little about how women and men construct the penis in relation to sex and gender in Africa. In this exploratory study from urban Ghana with 34 interviewees, I argue that the changing notions of sex and the penis, in terms of the form they take and in terms of ownership, offer women and men the space to negotiate sexual scripts and to highlight women’s penile preferences. The findings show that while women and men emphasize a biological representation of the penis (due to cultural and religious values), there are nuanced narratives that also acknowledge the social and symbolic importance of the penis to include self-sexual gratification and the use of sex toys. The study contests notions that project female vulnerability vis-a-vis male dominance in matters of sex and that project female sexual choices in Africa.

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Shields ◽  
Elaine C. Dicicco

Author(s):  
Chris Gilleard ◽  
Paul Higgs

This chapter begins by considering the distinction between sex and gender. The latter constitutes the source of the social division between men and women considered as social beings. It serves as both a reflection of division and inequality and a source of difference and identity. The chapter then explores the framing of this division in terms of patriarchy and the inequalities that are organised by and structured within the relations of work and of social reproduction. It focuses next upon the consequences of such a division, first in terms of both financial assets and resources and then in terms of social relational capital, drawing upon Putnam’s distinction between bridging and bonding capital. It then considers other sources of difference that become more salient in later life, in terms of health illness and longevity. The chapter ends with the role of gender in representing later life, and the role of later life in representing gender. It concludes by distinguishing between gender as a structure shaping third age culture, and gender as a constituent in the social imaginary of the fourth age.


Author(s):  
Rosemary L. Hopcroft

This chapter provides an overview of The Oxford Handbook of Evolution, Biology, and Society. Chapters in the first part of this book address the history of the use of method and theory from biology in the social sciences; the second part includes chapters on evolutionary approaches to social psychology; the third part includes chapters describing research on the interaction of genes (and other biochemicals such as hormones) and environmental contexts on a variety of outcomes of sociological interest; and the fourth part includes chapters that apply evolutionary theory to areas of traditional concern to sociologists—including the family, fertility, sex and gender, religion, crime, and race and ethnic relations. The last part of the book presents two chapters on cultural evolution.


1998 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Burkitt

This paper concentrates on the recent controversy over the division between sex and gender and the troubling of the binary distinctions between gender identities and sexualities, such as man and woman, heterosexual and homosexual. While supporting the troubling of such categories, I argue against the approach of Judith Butler which claims that these dualities are primarily discursive constructions that can be regarded as fictions. Instead, I trace the emergence of such categories to changing forms of power relations in a more sociological reading of Foucault's conceptualization of power, and argue that the social formation of identity has to be understood as emergent within socio-historical relations. I then consider what implications this has for a politics based in notions of identity centred on questions of sexuality and gender.


Author(s):  
Laura Sjoberg ◽  
Anna L. Weissman

The term queer theory came into being in academia as the name of a 1990 conference hosted by Teresa de Lauretis at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a follow-up special issue of the journal differences. In that sense, queer theory is newer to the social sciences and humanities than many of the ideas that are included in this bibliographic collection (e.g., realism or liberalism), both native to International Relations (IR) and outside of it. At the same time, queer theory is newer to IR than it is to the social sciences and humanities more broadly—becoming recognizable as an approach to IR very recently. Like many other critical approaches to IR, queer theory existed and was developed outside of the discipline in intricate ways before versions of it were imported into IR. While early proponents of queer theory, including de Lauretis, Judith Butler, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, and Lauren Berlant, had different ideas of what was included in queer theory and what its objectives were, they agreed that it included the rejection of heterosexuality as the standard for understanding sexuality, recognizing the heterogeneity of sex and gender figurations, and the co-constitution of racialized and sexualized subjectivities. Many scholars saw these realizations as a direction not only for rethinking sexuality, and for rethinking theory itself—where “queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant,” as Halperin has described in Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography (Halperin 1995, cited under Queer as a Concept, p. 62). A few scholars at the time, and more now, have expressed skepticism in the face of enthusiasm about a queer theory revolution—arguing that “the appeal of ‘queer theory’ has outstripped anyone’s sense of what exactly it means” (Michael Warner, cited in Jagose’s Queer Theory: An Introduction [Jagose 1997, cited under Textbooks, p. 1]) and that the appeal of the notion of queer theory (“queer is hot”) has overshadowed any intellectual payoff it might have, as explored in the article “What Does Queer Theory Teach Us about X?” (Berlant and Warner 1995, cited under Queer as a Concept). Were this bibliography attempting to capture the history and controversies of queer theory generally, it would be outdated and repetitive. Instead, it focuses on the ways that queer theory has been imported into, and engaged with, in disciplinary IR—looking, along the way, to provide enough information from queer theory generally to make the origins and intellectual foundations of “queer IR” intelligible. In IR, the recognition of queer theory is relatively new, as Weber has highlighted in her article “Why Is There No Queer International Theory?” (Weber 2015, cited under From IR/Queer to Queer IR). The utilization of queer theory in IR scholarship is not new, however. Scholars like Cynthia Weber and Spike Peterson were viewing IR through queer lenses in the 1990s—but that queer theorizing was rendered discursively impossible by assemblages on mainstream/gender IR. This annotated bibliography traces (visible and invisible) contributions to “queer IR,” with links to work in queer theory that informs those moves. After discussing in some detail “queer” as a concept, this essay situates queer theorizing within both social and political theory broadly defined first by engaging aspects of queer global studies including nationalism, global citizenship, homonormativity, and the violence of inclusion, and second by examining the theoretical and empirical contributions of a body of scholarship coming to be known as “queer IR.”


Author(s):  
Jeremy Punt

Queer readings of the Bible are indebted to feminist interpretation but work with a broader and more fluid notion of sex and gender than feminism. Not exhausted by them, queer biblical interpretations typically revolve around two distinct emphases, “queering” or investigations into the social construction of sex and gender, and “queerying” which traces the theoretical and political interests of such constructions, and their involvement in social dynamics and power. This essay explains queer biblical interpretation by showing that queer theory (de)constructs sex and gender; unravels established notions of fixed identity; contests heteronormativity; becomes indecent; outwits or goes beyond ascribed sex and gender; and queers biblical reception. Queer theory exposes sex and gender as powerful systems of convention that require, define, and even prescribe the form and function of sex and gender.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document