Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 495–499 | Cite as

The Power of (But Not In?) Sexual Configurations Theory

  • Kari Lerum
  • Shari L. Dworkin
Commentary on van Anders (2015)

Rubin (1984), in her article, “Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of sexuality,” observed that “[i]t is difficult to develop a pluralistic sexual ethics without a concept of benign sexual variation” (p. 153). Nearly more than 30 years later, van Anders (2015) may have answered Rubin’s call for conceptualizing benign human sexual variation (making room for a pluralistic sexual ethics) by introducing Sexual Configurations Theory (SCT). Put simply, SCT provides a three-dimensional (3D) map of existing empirical complexities; this allows for a comprehensive conceptual understanding of contemporary sexual diversities by drawing from the grounded experience of individuals.

In this commentary, we evaluate van Anders’ SCT in terms of its contribution to interdisciplinary sexuality research and scholarship. We begin with discussing the ways that SCT has a powerful impact from which sexuality researchers and practitioners should benefit. At the same time, we suggest that notions of power...

Keywords

Sexual Orientation Power Relation Minority Sexuality Sexual Diversity Sexual Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baca-Zinn, M., & Thorton-Dill, B. (1993). Difference and domination. In M. Baca-Zinn & B. Thorton-Dill (Eds.), Women of color in U.S. society (pp. 3–12). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bottoms, B. L., Sharver, P., Goodman, G., & Qin, J. (1995). In the name of God: A profile of religion-related child abuse. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman does not equal Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowleg, L. (2012). The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality—An important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1267–1273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Connell, R. W., & Dowsett, G. (1999). The unclean motion of the generative parts: Frameworks in Western thought on sexuality. In R. Parker & P. Aggleton (Eds.), Culture, society, and sexuality: A reader (pp. 449–472). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 19, 829–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decker, M. R., Crago, A. L., Chu, S. K. H., Sherman, S. G., Seshu, M. S., Buthelezi, K., … Beyrer, C. (2015). Human rights violations against sex workers: Burden and effect on HIV. Lancet, 385, 186–199.Google Scholar
  9. Dworkin, S. L. (2015). Men at risk: Masculinity, heterosexuality, and HIV/AIDS prevention. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hankivisky, O. (2012). Women’s health, men’s health, and gender and health: Implications of intersectionality. Social Science and Medicine, 74, 1712–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill-Collins, P. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33, S14–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill-Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hill-Collins, P. (1998). Fighting words: Black women and the search for justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hill-Collins, P. (1999). Moving beyond gender: Intersectionality and scientific knowledge. In M. M. Feree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 261–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Hirsch, J., Meneses, S., Thompson, B., Negroni, M., Pelcastre, B., & del Rio, C. (2007). The inevitability of infidelity: Sexual reputation, social geographies and marital HIV risk in rural Mexico. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 986–996.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, J. (1995). The invention of heterosexuality. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Messner, M. (1996). Studying up on sex. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13, 221–237.Google Scholar
  19. Nash, J. (2008). Rethinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger (pp. 1–28). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  21. Schultz, A. J., & Mullings, L. (2006). Gender, race, class & health: Intersectional approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Sen, G., Iyer, A., & Mukherjee, C. (2009). A methodology to analyze the intersections of social inequalities in health. Journal of Human Development & Capabilities, 10, 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stirrat, M., Meyer, I. H., Ouellette, S. C., & Gara, M. A. (2008). Measuring identity multiplicity and intersectionality: Hierarchical classes analysis of sexual, racial, and gender identities. Self & Identity, 7, 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ward, J. (2015). Not gay: Sex between straight white men. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Weeks, J. (1985). Sexuality and its discontents: Meanings, myths, and modern sexualities. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weldon, L. S. (2006). The structure of intersectionality: A comparative politics of gender. Politics of Gender, 2, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Interdisciplinary Arts & SciencesUniversity of Washington BothellBothellUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of NursingUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations