1. John D묮milio and Estelle Freedman. 1997. 밊amily Life and the Regulation of Deviance.?Pp. 15-38 in Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.2. John D묮milio. 1983. 밅apitalism and Gay Identity.?Pp. 100-113 in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. Edited by Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Tompson. New York: Monthly Review Press.

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 밺eviance?and what were the two main goals of regulating it? 2. D묮milio 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?

Family living for the Puritans was one of an economic and social necessity. D’Emilio contends that sexual desire was a big aspect of marriage, family, and the community. However, he argues that the Puritan way of dealing with sexual predicaments are much more complicated and willing to forgive than most people think. Any sexual deviants, such as premarital sex, rape, self-gratification, ‘buggery’, had strictly enforced punishments and consequences from the Puritan community to emphasize and channel sexual desires solely toward marriage. Because the Puritans so clearly defied the norm of reproductive sexuality, the crimes of sodomy, buggery, and bestiality carried the death penalty. This ideal view of marital, reproductive sexuality was enforced all throughout colonial America. Furthermore, there were many ways for children and minors to learn about sexuality within the home and community; punishment for sexual deviance was made public through whippings, trials, etc, there was extensive involvement of community members, the homes that families shared were small and thus children could see or hear parents having intercourse, and there were also religious repression against sexual desires. The two main goals for regulating sexual desires and deviance helped to enforce the system of martial, reproductive sexuality and to maintain white dominance over blacks. Furthermore, these goals for sexual regulation implied the primary goal of producing legitimate children.

D'Emilio argues that the relationship of capitalism and the family is contradictory, because he argues that the onset of capitalism made the institution of family less of an economic and more a private, personal entity. Thus, there were more individual approaches within the lives of people as there became more economic and social independence. D'Emilio argues that capitalism has led to the separation of sexuality from procreation and sexual expression becomes more th realm of choice than necessity. Furthermore, its free labor system has allowed large numbers of men and women to organize politically on the basis of their gay identities and see themselves as a part of the community of similar men and women. This, in turn created more lesbian/ gay communities. Although I think this argument has some validity, because the rise of capitalism did emphasize the accrument of personal human capital and focused on individual growth. However, I don't believe that there is a strong correlation between the 'coming out' of gay/lesbian individuals because of the rise of capitalism. There have been more movements acceptance, morality, and liberal shifts over the past few decades, which I think may have been more direct and influential in gay idenity.