The article by Steven Seidman made the claim that the United States government was able to take control of people’s sexuality, but over time has had a diminished role due to the protests from its citizens. Seidman split the article into four categories, Right to be Sexual, Women’s Sexuality, Homosexuality, and Interracial Marriage. By splitting the categories into different sections, the author was able to provide a more in-depth look at the claim and explain where the government was interfering with sexuality in different parts of society. Seidman’s claim displayed how the American government was far behind other countries in sexual tolerance. The article opened explaining how, “moral panic led to stepped-up state control over the bodies and
…show more content…
The author used Supreme Court cases and laws to help display the timeline where the government took control of sexuality, and where the people began to rebel. The government began to control sexuality by enacting the Comstock Law in 1873 which, “made it illegal to trade obscene articles and articles of immoral use” (108). This was only the beginning of the government’s crusade on sexuality, and it eventually led to laws such as banning contraceptives throughout the country. The reasoning behind the decision was to end premarital sex, but it only outraged society. One reason that the offer looked into in his Women’s Sexuality section was married couples and those who did not want children at the time being denied the ability to have sex since the consequence would lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Seidman explained how the Roe v Wade Supreme Court case in 1973 was instrumental in loosening the grip that states had on sexual practices. The ruling was that abortions were made legal as, “women’s right to privacy was recognized as encompassing ‘a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy’” (114). The reasoning here was that women should be allowed to determine whether or not they wanted an abortion since it was their …show more content…
The author merely listed the court cases that were essential in improving the way sexual practices were treated in society, but they did not list any ways that the court cases were either challenged or reversed by another case. Seidman stated information that supported his claim and did not focus on providing the other opinions, such as the backlash for rulings in controversial cases such as The Boy Scouts and Monmouth Council, et all v. James Dale in 2000. His bias did not make his argument as strong as it could have been, since he did not include the opposite side. If he was able to incorporate an example that refuted his claim and followed up with another example for his side, then it would have made it
The author used Supreme Court cases and laws to help display the timeline where the government took control of sexuality, and where the people began to rebel. The government began to control sexuality by enacting the Comstock Law in 1873 which, “made it illegal to trade obscene articles and articles of immoral use” (108). This was only the beginning of the government’s crusade on sexuality, and it eventually led to laws such as banning contraceptives throughout the country. The reasoning behind the decision was to end premarital sex, but it only outraged society. One reason that the offer looked into in his Women’s Sexuality section was married couples and those who did not want children at the time being denied the ability to have sex since the consequence would lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Seidman explained how the Roe v Wade Supreme Court case in 1973 was instrumental in loosening the grip that states had on sexual practices. The ruling was that abortions were made legal as, “women’s right to privacy was recognized as encompassing ‘a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy’” (114). The reasoning here was that women should be allowed to determine whether or not they wanted an abortion since it was their …show more content…
The author merely listed the court cases that were essential in improving the way sexual practices were treated in society, but they did not list any ways that the court cases were either challenged or reversed by another case. Seidman stated information that supported his claim and did not focus on providing the other opinions, such as the backlash for rulings in controversial cases such as The Boy Scouts and Monmouth Council, et all v. James Dale in 2000. His bias did not make his argument as strong as it could have been, since he did not include the opposite side. If he was able to incorporate an example that refuted his claim and followed up with another example for his side, then it would have made it