Читать книгу Heterosexual Histories - Группа авторов - Страница 9

1. “Shaws Visits Dr. Josephine Jackson, a Noted Authority on Psychology,” Bloomington (IL) Pantagraph, March 26, 1924, 16.

2. Jonathan Ned Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality (1995; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 92. See also Mason Stokes, “There Is Heterosexuality: Jessie Fauset, W. E. B. Du Bois, and the Problem of Desire,” African American Review 44, nos. 1–2 (2011): 69–70.

3. Josephine Jackson, “Outwitting Your Nerves: The New Psychology in Action,” Corsicana (TX) Daily Sun, April 21, 1930, 14.

4. Wide-ranging scholars have considered imperatives surrounding sexual respectability on various populations. One of the most influential explorations of the “politics of respectability” and race remains Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham’s Righteous Discontent: The Women’s Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880–1920 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 185–229. For work that analyzes the significance of class and respectability, see Michael Mason, The Making of Victorian Sexuality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), esp. 105–74. In Remaking Respectability: African American Women in Interwar Detroit (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), Victoria W. Wolcott considers both race and class in tandem. For analysis of how respectability politics could both cause and reflect tensions among African-descended Americans, see Michele Mitchell, Righteous Propagation: African Americans and the Politics of Racial Destiny after Reconstruction (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004). For analysis of respectability and homosexuality, see Martin Meeker, “Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 10, no. 1 (2001): 78–116.

5. “A. Wilberforce Williams,” Journal of Negro History 25, no. 2 (April 1940): 262–63; Lucius C. Harper, “Dustin’ Off the News,” Defender, May 29, 1943, 1, 4. For examples of Williams’s columns about venereal disease, see Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams, “Keep Healthy,” Chicago Defender, October 25, 1913, 4; “Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams Talks on Preventative Measures . . . ,” Chicago Defender, January 22, 1916, 6; “Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams Talks on Preventative Measures . . . ,” Chicago Defender, September 21, 1918, 16; “Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams Talks on Preventative Measures . . . ,” Chicago Defender, April 7, 1923, 12. Significantly, Williams published occasional articles on health—including ones about venereal disease—into the 1930s. See, for example, Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams, “The Way to Health,” Chicago Defender, February 16, 1935, 12.

6. See, for example, the following columns: Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams, “Keep Healthy,” Chicago Defender, November 8, 1913, 4; “Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams Talks on Preventative Measures . . . ,” Chicago Defender, November 20, 1915, 8; “Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams Talks on Preventative Measures . . . ,” Chicago Defender, September 25, 1920, 12; Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams, “Keep Healthy,” Chicago Defender, October 4, 1913, 7.

7. A search of other select African American newspapers—namely, the Norfolk Journal and Guide, the Atlanta Daily World, and the Philadelphia Tribune—revealed no usage of either “heterosexual” or “heterosexuality” before 1940. In 1933, however, the Afro-American published an article about a religious movement led by a man of African descent who was probably born as George Baker (1879–1965) but who was better known as “Father Divine.” And when reporting on an investigation of Father Divine’s interracial Peace Mission, the Afro-American noted that a committee concluded that Divine’s followers were “deluded into accepting certain social, biological, and economic fallacies”—including the notion that “the human race may be propagated without heterosexual relationship in marital life.” To be sure, the committee acknowledged that Divine’s Peace Mission could have a positive impact on “former criminal[s] or morally loose characters.” The committee took a dim view of the Peace Mission’s advocacy of celibacy all the same. Coincidentally—or not—some of Divine’s black female followers might have embraced “forms of desire prohibited in Divine’s theology,” namely, same-sex desire. If this article ultimately made no direct claims about such women, committee members did note what they considered to be a worrisome congregation of adults and children of the same sex in one Peace Mission dormitory. What do we make of the apparent reality that it was not until investigation of a heterodox movement that a leading black newspaper would invoke the term “heterosexual”? See “Are Father Divine’s Angels Deluded?,” Baltimore Afro-American, December 30, 1933, 12; Judith Weisenfeld, “Real True Buds: Celibacy and Same-Sex Desire across the Color Line in Father Divine’s Peace Mission Movement,” in Devotions and Desires: Histories of Sexuality and Religion in the Twentieth-Century United States, ed. Gillian Frank, Bethany Moreton, and Heather R. White (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2018), 95.

8. “Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams Talks on Preventative Measures . . . ,” Chicago Defender, April 18, 1925, A12. The literature scholar Mary Zaborskis maintains that one of Williams’s contemporaries, the African American educator and reformer Janie Porter Barrett (1865–1948), focused on the “heterosexualization” of delinquent girls at the Industrial Home School for Colored Girls in Virginia during the late 1910s and early 1920s. It is not clear, however, whether Barrett thought more in terms of encouraging sexual purity, respectability, matrimony, and “home life” or whether she actually embraced emergent notions about “heterosexuality” in a manner akin to Josephine Jackson. See Zaborskis, “Queering Black Girlhood at the Virginia Industrial School,” Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society 45, no. 2 (2020): 373–94, esp. 381–86.

9. On the history of how secular and religious marriage counselors actively taught heterosexuality (and engaged deeply with social scientific and psychological theories about heterosexuality), see Rebecca L. Davis, More Perfect Unions: The American Search for Marital Bliss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). Newspaper searches reveal myriad advice columns that mention and explain heterosexuality in papers throughout the United States. See, for example, “Dr. Brady Says: Did the Doctor Do Right?,” Brooklyn Eagle, October 26, 1939, 25; Dr. George W. Crane (Northwestern University), “Case Records of a Psychologist,” Ogden (UT) Standard-Examiner, March 30, 1938, 4; Dr. George W. Crane, “Case Records of a Psychologist,” Appleton (WI) Post-Crescent, December 10, 1938, 8; Dr. George W. Crane, “Encourage Child to Mix Friends: Case Records of a Psychologist,” Pittsburgh Press, April 21, 1939, 53; Dr. George W. Crane, “The Case Records of a Psychologist,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 15, 1939, 20.

10. “Dr. A. Wilberforce Williams Talks on Preventative Measures . . . ,” Chicago Defender, July 14, 1928, A2.

11. On the need to reevaluate the Victorian-to-modern paradigm for turn-of-the-twentieth-century sexuality in the United States, see Catherine Cocks, “Rethinking Sexuality in the Progressive Era,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5, no. 2 (2006): 93–118. For a challenge to Cocks, one that embraces the “Victorian-to-modern framework,” see Leigh Ann Wheeler, “Inventing Sexuality: Ideologies, Identities, and Practices in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era,” in A Companion to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, ed. Christopher McKnight Nichols and Nancy C. Unger (Somerset, NJ: Wiley, 2017), 102–15.

12. David M. Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 105.

13. Daniel Wickberg, “Heterosexual White Male: Some Recent Inversions in American Cultural History,” Journal of American History 92, no. 1 (June 2005): 155.

14. Robert A. Nye rightly observes, “As an object of disciplinary knowledge, sexuality has never been the monopoly of any single field. It has been a principal subject for ethicists, philosophers, theologians, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, creative artists, medical professionals, psychologists, and psychoanalysts.” Nye nevertheless stresses that historicizing sexuality is critical: “The idea that tastes and identities appear in particular historical circumstances means that we are unlikely to understand the promise or the limits of our contemporary sexualities unless we understand those of the past.” Nye, “On Why History Is So Important to an Understanding of Human Sexuality,” in Sexuality, ed. Nye (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 3–15 (quotes on 3, 15).

15. Jeffrey Weeks, Sexuality and Its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, and Modern Sexualities (London: Routledge, 1985), 6.

16. See, for example, Ifi Amadiume, Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society (London: Zed Books, 1987). Amadiume’s pathbreaking Male Daughters, Female Husbands is not a work of transgender history but instead challenges hegemonic, Western notions about gender itself. Significantly, Amadiume shows that European colonial powers in West Africa imposed rigid ideas about binary sex differences on indigenous people and that Africans’ own conceptions of gender could be notably flexible. Transgender histories have further prodded us to approach the history of heterosexuality as the effect of historical processes rather than a universal condition. Jen Manion centers the stories of female husbands who “transed gender,” to show that for nearly two hundred years of British and US history, “gender was malleable and not linked entirely to sex.” Manion, Female Husbands: A Trans History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 13.

17. Monique Wittig, The Straight Mind and Other Essays (Boston: Beacon, 1992), 40, 43.

18. Randolph Trumbach, Sex and the Gender Revolution, vol. 1, Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment London (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 4; see also 9–10. John D’Emilio has argued that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, “‘heterosexuality’ remained undefined, since it was literally the only way of life.” D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940–1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 10. The historian and literary scholar Henry Abelove, by contrast, notes that the ample demographic evidence of rising fertility rates in eighteenth-century England indicates a new popularity for cross-sex “sexual intercourse so-called” as a particular kind of newly privileged erotic behavior, which together with capitalism helped create “modern heterosexuality.” Abelove, “Some Speculation on the History of ‘Sexual Intercourse’ during the ‘Long Eighteenth Century’ in England,” in Beyond the Body Proper: Reading the Anthropology of Material Life, ed. Margaret M. Lock and Judith Farquhar (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), 221.

19. Karma Lochrie, Heterosyncrasies: Female Sexuality When Normal Wasn’t (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005).

20. Ruth Mazo Karras, Unmarriages: Women, Men, and Sexual Unions in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 4–5, 2.

21. Nearly thirty years ago, the philosopher Ian Hacking explained that the idea of the “normal,” much like the categories of “heterosexual” and homosexual,” originated in the nineteenth century. In The Taming of Chance, Hacking argued that by the late nineteenth century, the psychological sciences had helped create a new concept of the normal/abnormal, which supplanted the older binary of natural/unnatural. Hacking, The Taming of Chance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). The scholar Laura Doan argues in her unpublished manuscript “Birds and Bees: An Unnatural History of Modern Sexuality,” however, that the older natural/unnatural system persisted long after “normality” emerged. Disability studies has further interrogated the power of ideas of the “normal” and critiqued the binary oppositions of ability/disability and its corollary of normality/freakery. See Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body (New York: NYU Press, 1996); Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997); Lennard J. Davis, The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013).

22. Peter Cryle and Elizabeth Stephens, Normality: A Critical Genealogy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017). See also Laura Doan, “Marie Stopes’s Wonderful Rhythm Charts: Normalizing the Natural,” Journal of the History of Ideas 78, no. 4 (2017): 595–620.

23. See Calvin Thomas, ed., Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000).

24. From that issue, see especially Annamarie Jagose, “The Trouble with Antinormativity,” differences 26, no. 1 (2015): 26–47.

25. Lochrie, Heterosyncrasies, xiii.

26. Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner, “Sex in Public,” Critical Inquiry 24, no. 2 (1998): 548n2, 549.

27. Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, 107.

28. Marjorie B. Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 66.

29. Judit Takacs, “The Double Life of Kertbeny,” in Past and Present of Radical Sexual Politics, ed. Gert Hekma (Amsterdam: UvA Massa Foundation, 2004), 30; Katz, Invention of Heterosexuality, 19–32.

30. Ross Brooks, “Transforming Sexuality: The Medical Sources of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–95) and the Origins of the Theory of Bisexuality,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 67, no. 2 (2010): 177–216; Garber, Vice Versa; Sigmund Freud, Dora: An Analysis of a Case of Hysteria, ed. Philip Rieff (New York: Collier Books, 1993), part 2; Freud, “Extract from Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality: 1. The Sexual Aberrations (1905),” in Bisexuality: A Critical Reader, ed. Merl Storr (London: Routledge, 1999), 20–27; Henry Havelock Ellis, “Extracts from Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume I: Sexual Inversion (1897) and from Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume II: Sexual Inversion (1915),” in Storr, Bisexuality, 15–19. For additional consideration of Freud’s theorization of bisexuality, see Birgit Lang and Katie Sutton, “The Queer Cases of Psychoanalysis: Rethinking the Scientific Study of Homosexuality, 1890s–1920s,” German History 34, no. 3 (2016): 419–44, esp. 423–25.

31. Lucy Bland and Laura Doan, eds., Sexology in Culture: Labelling Bodies and Desires (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

32. Julian Carter, The Heart of Whiteness: Normal Sexuality and Race in America, 1880–1940 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007); Siobhan B. Somerville, Queering the Color Line: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000). In the United States, at least, systematic processes of racial differentiation dated back to the antebellum period and the American school of ethnology. See George Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817–1914 (New York: Harper and Row, 1971).

33. Angus McLaren, The Trials of Masculinity: Policing Sexual Boundaries, 1870–1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 1–2.

34. Katz, Invention of Heterosexuality, 14.

35. Hanne Blank, Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality (Boston: Beacon, 2012).

36. Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

37. Lisa Duggan, Sapphic Slashers: Sex, Violence, and American Modernity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000); Duggan, “The Trials of Alice Mitchell: Sensationalism, Sexology, and the Lesbian Subject in Turn-of-the-Century America,” Signs 18, no. 4 (Summer 1993): 791–814; Jennifer Terry, An American Obsession: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Vernon A. Rosario, ed., Science and Homosexualities (New York: Routledge, 1997); Heike Bauer, ed., Sexology and Translation: Cultural and Scientific Encounters across the Modern World, Sexuality Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2015); Harry Oosterhuis, Stepchildren of Nature: Krafft-Ebing, Psychiatry, and the Making of Sexual Identity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

38. Geertje A. Mak, “Conflicting Heterosexualities: Hermaphroditism and the Emergence of Surgery around 1900,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 24, no. 3 (September 2015): 402; Katz, Invention of Heterosexuality; Kevin White, The First Sexual Revolution: The Emergence of Male Heterosexuality in Modern America (New York: NYU Press, 1993); Roy Porter and Lesley A. Hall, The Facts of Life: The Creation of Sexual Knowledge in Britain, 1650–1950 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995); Daniel Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).

39. Important interventions on this front include the following texts: Kathy Peiss, Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986); Joanne J. Meyerowitz, Women Adrift: Independent Wage Earners in Chicago, 1880–1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); White, First Sexual Revolution; Margaret A. Lowe, Looking Good: College Women and Body Image, 1875–1930 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003); Elizabeth Alice Clement, Love for Sale: Courting, Treating, and Prostitution in New York City, 1900–1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006); and Christina Simmons, Making Marriage Modern: Women’s Sexuality from the Progressive Era to World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

40. D’Emilio additionally contends “capitalism has created conditions that allow some men and women to organize a personal life around their erotic/emotional attraction to their own sex.” John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality, ed. Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983), 100–113 (quotes on 110, 109, 104). For allied analysis regarding capitalism and sexuality, see Robert A. Padgug, “Sexual Matters: On Conceptualizing Sexuality in History,” in Passion and Power: Sexuality in History, ed. Kathy Peiss and Christina Simmons with Robert A. Padgug (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), 14–31. For critical analysis of gender, the body, and the transition to capitalism, see Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body, and Primitive Accumulation, rev. ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 2014).

41. George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890–1940 (New York: Basic Books, 1994), 126.

42. Margot Canaday, The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 3.

43. Cheryl D. Hicks, Talk with You like a Woman: African American Women, Justice, and Reform in New York, 1890–1935 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 225. See also LaKisha Michelle Simmons, Crescent City Girls: The Lives of Young Black Women in Segregated New Orleans (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015).

44. Hicks, Talk with You like a Woman, 225. For another crucial study of the gendering of interracial same-sex sexuality, see Regina G. Kunzel, Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern American Sexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).

45. Pablo Mitchell, “Accomplished Ladies and Coyotes: Marriage, Power, and Straying from the Flock in Territorial New Mexico, 1880–1920,” in Sex, Love, Race: Crossing Boundaries in North American History, ed. Martha Hodes (New York: NYU Press, 1999), 331–51; Victor Jew, “‘Chinese Demons’: The Violent Articulation of Chinese Otherness and Interracial Sexuality in the U.S. Midwest, 1885–1889,” Journal of Social History 37, no. 2 (2003): 389–410; Mary Ting Yi Lui, The Chinatown Trunk Mystery: Murder, Miscegenation, and Other Dangerous Encounters in Turn-of-the Century New York City (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); Lui, “Saving Young Girls from Chinatown: White Slavery and Woman Suffrage, 1910–1920,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, 18, no. 3 (2009): 393–417. For important discussion of why marriages between Native American men and white women were not necessarily deemed problematic during the nineteenth century, see C. Joseph Genetin-Pilawa, “‘All Intent on Seeing the White Woman Married to the Red Man’: The Parker/Sackett Affair and the Public Spectacle of Intermarriage,” Journal of Women’s History 20, no. 2 (2008): 57–85. For allied analysis that explores sexuality in indigenous law, see Fay Yarbrough, “Legislating Women’s Sexuality: Cherokee Marriage Laws in the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Social History 38, no. 2 (2004): 385–406.

46. Amy Sueyoshi, “Intimate Inequalities: Interracial Affection and Same, Sex, Love in the ‘Heterosexual’ Life of Yone Noguchi, 1897–1909,” Journal of American Ethnic History 29, no. 4 (2010): 38.

47. Nayan Shah, “Between ‘Oriental Depravity’ and ‘Natural Degenerates’: Spatial Borderlands and the Making of Ordinary Americans,” American Quarterly 57, no. 3 (September 2005): 703–25. See also Shah, Stranger Intimacy: Contesting Race, Sexuality, and the Law in the North American West, American Crossroads 31 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011).

48. Peggy Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 191, 119.

49. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, “The Beauty and the Freak,” Michigan Quarterly Review 37, no. 3 (Summer 1998), http://quod.lib.umich.edu.

50. Peter Kolchin, “Whiteness Studies: The New History of Race in America,” Journal of American History 89, no. 1 (2002): 160. See also Thomas A. Guglielmo, White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). For a decidedly different take on whiteness studies, see Wickberg, “Heterosexual White Male,” 136–57.

51. Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper, “Beyond ‘Identity,’” Theory and Society 29, no. 1 (2000): 1–47.

52. Berlant and Warner, “Sex in Public,” 552.

53. Sharon Marcus, “Queer Theory for Everyone: A Review Essay,” Signs 31, no. 1 (2005): 191–218.

54. Laura Doan, “Sex Education and the Great War Soldier: A Queer Analysis of the Practice of ‘Hetero’ Sex,” Journal of British Studies 51, no. 3 (2012): 663.

55. The Feminists’ manifesto originally appeared in Notes from the Second Year: Women’s Liberation; Major Writings of the Radical Feminists (New York: Radical Feminism, 1970) and was reprinted in Radical Feminism, ed. Anne Koedt, Ellen Levine, and Anita Rapone (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1973), 375, 376. As Martha Shelley wrote in “Lesbianism and the Women’s Liberation Movement,” “Love can only exist between equals, not between the oppressed and the oppressor.” Shelley, “Lesbianism and the Women’s Liberation Movement,” in Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader, ed. Barbara A. Crow (New York: NYU Press, 2000), 308. See also a critique of “the heterosexual institution” in Anne Koedt, “The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm,” in Notes from the Second Year, a reprint of her 1968 article, available at http://collections.mun.ca. Yet another example: Charlotte Bunch of The Furies warned that heterosexual privilege remained a problem for the women’s liberation movement: “As long as women still benefit from heterosexuality, receive its privileges and security, they will at some point have to betray their sisters, especially lesbian sisters who do not receive those benefits.” Bunch, “Lesbians in Revolt,” in Crow, Radical Feminism, 336.

56. “Is Homosexuality Natural?,” in Gay Liberation (February 1970), 5, available at http://paganpressbooks.com.

57. Carl Wittman, A Gay Manifesto (1970), 3, available at http://paganpressbooks.com.

58. The Red Butterfly, Gay Oppression: A Radical Analysis (New York, 1970), 1, available at http://paganpressbooks.com. See also John Lauritsen, “The Red Butterfly,” Pagan Press, 2011, http://paganpressbooks.com.

59. Gayle Rubin, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,” in Deviations: A Gayle Rubin Reader (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011), 54.

60. Rubin, 61.

61. Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Signs 5 (Summer 1980): 631–60. For a series of articles under the heading of “The Institution of Heterosexuality,” see Snitow, Stansell, and Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire, 177–275. Feminist historians continued to explore the “institution of heterosexuality” into the mid-1980s, although subsequent works, perhaps due to the impact of queer theory in the late 1980s and early 1990s, named it less often. Feminist scholars have, however, productively engaged Rich’s classic article in relation to select racialized populations. See, for example, Judy Tzu-Chun Wu, “Asian American History and Racialized Compulsory Deviance,” Journal of Women’s History 15, no. 3 (2003): 58–62; Mattie Udora Richardson, “No More Secrets, No More Lies: African American History and Compulsory Heterosexuality,” Journal of Women’s History 15, no. 3 (2003): 63–76. Leila J. Rupp notes that Rich actually prefers another iteration of her article to the one that was published in Signs. See Rupp, “Women’s History in the New Millennium: Adrienne Rich’s ‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence’: A Retrospective,” Journal of Women’s History 15, no. 3 (2003): 9–10. For that different iteration, see Rich, Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose, 1979–1985 (New York: Norton, 1994), 23–75.

62. The historian Gerda Lerner developed these theories in her history of patriarchy, in which she argued that male domination over women was the result of historical processes rooted in resource allocation and systems of domination, the results of which allow for women to remain marginal to the ideological contours and political operations of societies in which they play socially instrumental roles. Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

63. For brief discussions of this particular history, see Deborah Gray White, Too Heavy a Load: Black Women in Defense of Themselves, 1894–1994 (New York: Norton, 1999), 242–56; Kimberly Springer, Living for the Revolution: Black Feminist Organizations, 1968–1980 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005), 56–61; Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2017), 4–8.

64. The Combahee River Collective, The Combahee River Collective Statement: Black Feminist Organizing in the Seventies and Eighties, Freedom Organizing Series 1 (New York: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press, 1986), 9.

65. Combahee River Collective, 13.

66. Audre Lorde, I Am Your Sister: Black Women Organizing across Sexualities, Freedom Organizing Series 3 (New York: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press, 1985), 3.

67. Lorde, I Am Your Sister, 3–4.

68. Michael Warner, “Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet,” Social Text, no. 29 (1991): 3.

69. Michael Warner, introduction to Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, ed. Warner, Cultural Politics 6 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), xxi. Karma Lochrie builds from Warner’s definitions to explain how heteronormativity differs from heterosexuality: “‘Heterosexuality’ expands on a specific desire for the opposite sex and sexual intercourse to include moral and social virtue. ‘Heteronormativity,’ in brief, is heterosexuality that has become presumptive, that is, heterosexuality that is both descriptive and prescriptive, that defines everything from who we think we are as a nation, to what it means to be human, to ‘our ideals, our principles, our hopes and aspirations’” (Heterosyncrasies, 4). Lochrie quotes a passage from Warner’s The Trouble with Normal, where he, in turn, is citing a woman who held a leadership position in the Mattachine Society in the 1950s; see Warner, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life (New York: Free Press, 1999), 46.

70. Marlon B. Ross, “Beyond the Closet as a Raceless Paradigm,” in Black Queer Studies: A Critical Anthology, ed. E. Patrick Johnson and Mae Henderson (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005), 183.

71. See, for example, Ann Laura Stoler, Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995); Stoler, Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); Stoler, Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006). Important, allied analysis may also be found in Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Conquest (New York: Routledge, 1995).

72. Relevant overviews include Joanne Meyerowitz, “AHR Forum: Transnational Sex and U.S. History,” American Historical Review 114, no. 5 (2009): 1273–86; Cornelia H. Dayton and Lisa Levenstein, “The Big Tent of U.S. Women’s and Gender History: A State of the Field,” Journal of American History 99, no. 3 (2012): 793–817; Michele Mitchell, “Turns of the Kaleidoscope: ‘Race,’ Ethnicity, and Analytical Patterns in American Women’s and Gender History,” Journal of Women’s History 25, no. 4 (2013): 46–73; Monica Perales, “On Borderlands / La Frontera: Gloria Anzaldúa and Twenty-Five Years of Research on Gender in the Borderlands,” Journal of Women’s History 25, no. 4 (2013): 163–73. For select analyses of gender, sexuality, and religion, see Susan Juster and Lisa MacFarlane, eds., A Mighty Baptism: Race, Gender, and the Creation of American Protestantism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996); Janet R. Jakobsen and Ann Pellegrini, Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance (New York: NYU Press, 2003); Richard Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); Rebecca L. Davis, “‘Not Marriage at All, but Simple Harlotry’: The Companionate Marriage Controversy,” Journal of American History 94, no. 4 (2008): 1137–63; R. Marie Griffith, “The Religious Encounters of Alfred C. Kinsey,” Journal of American History 95, no. 2 (2008): 349–77; Gillian Frank, Bethany Moreton, and Heather R. White, “Introduction: More than Missionary: Doing the Histories of Religion and Sexuality Together,” in Frank, Moreton, and White, Devotions and Desires, 1–16; Rebecca L. Davis, “Purity and Population: American Jews, Marriage, and Sexuality,” in Frank, Moreton, and White, Devotions and Desires, 54–70; Weisenfeld, “Real True Buds,” 90–112.

73. Richard Dyer, White, 20th anniversary ed. (London: Routledge, 2017), 20.

74. Karen E. Fields and Barbara J. Fields, Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life (London: Verso, 2014), 16.

75. Michele Mitchell and Naoko Shibusawa with Stephan F. Miescher, introduction to Gender, Imperialism and Global Exchanges, ed. Miescher, Mitchell and Shibusawa (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015), 4–5.

76. For important albeit select statements on racialized gender, see Eileen Boris, “‘You Wouldn’t Want One of ’Em Dancing with Your Wife’: Racialized Bodies on the Job in World War II,” American Quarterly 50, no. 1 (1998): 77–108, esp. 80; Evelyn Nakano Glenn, Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 7, 136, 252–56; Marisa J. Fuentes, Dispossessed Lives: Enslaved Women, Violence, and the Archive (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 75, 86, 94, 96–97, 113, 129. For analysis of “racialized orgasm,” see Carolyn Herbst Lewis, Prescription for Heterosexuality: Sexual Citizenship in the Cold War Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 43–44.

77. Kevin P. Murphy and Jennifer M. Spear, Historicising Sexuality and Gender (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 10. See also Afsaneh Najmabadi, “Beyond the Americas: Are Gender & Sexuality Useful Categories of Analysis?,” Journal of Women’s History 18, no. 1 (2006): 11–21.

78. For work that complicates Cold War–era marital sexuality in a different manner, see Lauren Jae Gutterman, Her Neighbor’s Wife: A History of Lesbian Desire within Marriage (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020). See also Clayton Howard, The Closet and the Cul-de-Sac: The Politics of Sexual Privacy in Northern California (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019).