Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz's Discourse on Antebellum Sexuality

Antebellum Sexuality

An important historical concept is the one of sporting culture, a time during which human sexuality was debated and discussed to a heightened degree. The era of male swagger and domination over many if not all forms of popular entertainment makes up much of the sporting culture, as well as their interactions and thoughts towards women. Popular culture during this time was very much made by men for men, and women were categorized into very few categories: the dutiful, honorable, righteous homemaker and the desirable, lustful, sexual object. This is a result of the glorification by men of both prostitution and stay-at-home mothers. This brought with it the intellectual discussion of prudery versus promiscuity. According to Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz in her book Attitudes toward Sex in Antebellum America, four frameworks permeated the discussion: vernacular sexuality, evangelical Christianity, reform physiology, and sex at the center of life (5). The second and the third constitute the two traditional opposing views on the subject—puritanical chastity and more freethinking science.

In the early 1800s, Lyman Beecher was a key speaker for evangelical Christianity and eventually became a leader in the Second Great Awakening. A part of the movement that viewed free love as an example of man’s wickedness and lust becoming a substantial obstacle to the Gospel’s teachings (in his eyes), Beecher considered carnal urges to be the influence of Satan, linked to the fall of man (Horowitz 8). He is quoted in one of his sermons to say “[M]an is desperately wicked, and cannot be qualified for good membership in society without the influence of moral restraint. . . . If we do give up our laws and institutions, our guilt and the misery will be very great” (Horowitz 45). “Moral restraint” in this quotation refers to the chastity and prudery of Christians, a sentiment that preachers like Beecher were passionate to spread.

A response to evangelical Christianity was reform physiology, a way of looking at sexuality as a science, a natural and necessary act in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. This movement brought with it a more open-minded way of viewing sex. The man responsible for initiating this movement, Robert Dale Owen, published Moral Physiology, which is considered the first argument for the use of contraception (Horowitz 54). Therein, he argues that free intercourse is not the wicked act Beecher claims it to be. “[Reproduction] is sometimes spoken of as a low and selfish propensity; and the Shakers call it a ‘carnal and sensual passion.’ . . . But, in itself, it appears to me the most social and least selfish of all our instincts” (Horowitz 55). He goes on to argue that sex in and of itself is instinctual and should not be considered a henious act.

The four frameworks of sexuality in the nineteenth century in fact relate a great deal to how sexuality is considered today—albeit to a lesser degree. To a certain extent, there are still debates today about what is and is not considered appropriate in terms of sexual conduct. In fact, recent movements such as the “Me, Too” movement, as well as certain celebrities being exposed as having sexually predatory behaviors creates a time in which sexuality takes on a different meaning—much like the four frameworks in the 1800s did. Therefore (although prudery has a different meaning today than in the nineteenth century), much is different about our discussoins about intercourse, but then again, much stays the same.