John D'Emilio Articles

The article on family life during colonial times focused the sexual expectations of the time. It explained what sexual relations were meant for and what acts were regarded as illegal and unlawful. It also attempted to provide insights into people’s lives as it explained excerpts from letters and accounts of experiences. The overall consensus and strong focus for the Puritans and colonists was that sex was meant for reproductive purposes only. It was supposed to take part only after a couple was married, and for the sole purpose of creating a family. Sex to satisfy desire, especially outside of marriage was forbidden. The article also discussed sexual deviance. This included acts of bestiality, sodomy, rape, and premarital sex. The colonists used God and the church as well as the law to fight the deviance. The level of punishment varied from crime to crime. It could range from paying a fine to death. The article states that woman is more likely to be out of control with lust and passion than men are. Thus they are constantly taught to refocus on the church. There were few books written on the topics, however Puritans wrote about suppression of lust and desire. Relationships were not based on love. The duty of sex was to increase the population, not for self fulfillment. For women and men who committed crimes of premarital sex they community offered a chance for repentance through confession. In cases like this they were eventually allowed to marry and their sins were forgiven. Regulation of these laws was enforced by courts, judges and community members who observed and commented as well. There were also Morality Acts or laws which served to control and regulate. People learned about sexuality as children by growing up in small homes. The church and the court were two of the most important models of sexual standards. The main goals of regulation were to keep sex for the purpose of procreation and to keep it only between married couples. I found the article to be incredibly interesting. One would imagine that during this time period people were incredibly perfect and solemn and holy, however it was not the case. Some of the descriptions of behavior I found disturbing but I was interested in reading about old customs and situations that people dealt with. It is also interesting to compare it sexual regulation in today’s society. Although there is less of a focus on procreation as the main goal, many of the standards are not that different.

D’Emilio explains that the family definition of the past was one that focused on the family working as a unit in order to produce something of some kind. For example a farming family would all work together in order to grow crops and food that would then be used for survival. Family was a way of combining labor efforts for the benefits of the family. Parents needed the help of their children in order to survive. However, as capitalism increased and people began working as “free laborers” then the shift happened. “The family was no longer an independent unit of production.” Economy was no longer household based. The “family” shifted from the family as an institution of survival and dependence to a unit based on “personal” lives and emotionally stimulating relationships. I understand that the capitalist nature of the society does not go with the old definition of a family, but I think that the definition of a family is changing directly with what today’s society calls for. I think that family as a nurturing support system is more beneficial in this capitalist world.
D’Emilio also writes about how gay identity stemmed from capitalism. He explained that before capitalism homosexuality was not really an option because people needed to marry and produce in order to survive. They needed to have children that would be able to work with them. However, once wage labor spread people began to have “social space” and were able to pursue their own desires. He writes, “Instead of as parts on an interdependent family unit, it was possible for homosexual desire to coalesce into a personal identity- and identity based on the ability to remain outside the heterosexual family and to construct a personal life based on the attraction to one’s own sex.” From this grew support groups, night lives and networks. I understand his belief that gay identity grew from capitalism, but I am not sure that I agree completely. I don’t think that it came up because people had the chance to explore desire; I think that perhaps it was able to become more prominent because people were less restrained. I believe that it was always there but perhaps repressed. Capitalism gave them the ability to be independent, not necessarily homosexual- but merely themselves.