Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- dorsey_making_men_what_they_should_be [2026/02/06 19:11] – [Intimacy and Homosexuality] nrutkows
+++ dorsey_making_men_what_they_should_be [2026/02/07 02:31] (current) – [Intimacy and Homosexuality] smilton
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Sherman's trial reveals the tensions between old notions of Christian male intimacy and newer ideas about sinful homosexuality that could potentially be punishable by death. Dorsey notes that Sherman never fully denied any intimate touches between him and the men he'd lodged with, but he claims that these touches were purely holy rather than sexual. Sherman's insistence upon a distinction between spiritual and sexual intimacy indicates that, at this time of increasing visibility of homosexuality, the lines between different forms of intimacy were very blurred to onlookers. Dorsey's analysis is significant in that it doesn't seek to determine whether or not Sherman was actually acting in a sexual way, but rather the ways in which male intimacy was going through a major transformation in Christian communities in the US. (Noah Rutkowski)
+Dorsey mentions that the nature of Christian manliness was a competitive religious market, that has multiple clashes over the intimacy of men who have homoerotic ideals for sexual desires. With the church and religion deeming homosexuality as a sin the question of manliness becomes for-front within this religious space. Dorsey mentions the difference between men and women being the aspect of gossip, which the clergymen who were in charge of Sherman's trial used in order to judge his character, instead of proven evidence, which shows the lack of concrete boundaries between the churches ideals for men and women.  (Sage Milton)
 ===== Reform and Changes in Expression =====
 This article challenges our modern notions of sex and sexuality, particularly when it comes to its discussion of masturbation. Our modern masturbation taboo has its origins, at least in part, in the evangelical revival of the Second Great Awakening, where preachers began to focus much of their efforts on sexual purification. This stood in contrast to the prevailing ideas of masturbation up until that point: a thing that was not discussed publicly, but generally tolerated. Eleazer Sherman, despite himself being an evangelical associated with a Christian revival movement, gave public defenses of masturbation and other increasingly taboo forms of personal or social intimacy against sexual reformers - most of whom were only a decade younger than him. This underscores total and rapid upheaval of what it meant to be a man in the nineteenth-century. Male-male intimacy, which had defined masculine relationships up until that point, became entirely taboo incredibly suddenly, and male-male social relationships became redefined into something colder and more closed off. (Nick Thodal)
 Doresey highlights how evangelical reform movements fundamentally reshaped acceptable forms of sexual expression by transforming previously private or tolerated behaviours into markers of moral failure. Sherman’s public defence of masturbation reveals the instability and contestation of these new sexual norms, even among evangelicals themselves, and illustrates how reform was uneven rather than universally accepted. These debates signal a broader cultural shift in which masculine intimacy and bodily expression were increasingly regulated, narrowing the emotional and physical boundaries of male relationships in the 19th century. (Caitlyn Edwards)