1. Jeffrey Weeks says: The legal classification [of homosexuality] and the epithet had

1. Jeffrey Weeks says: “The legal classification [of homosexuality] and the epithet had […] an uncertain status and was often used loosely to describe various forms of non-reproductive sex. There was therefore a crucial distinction between traditional concepts of buggery and modern concepts of homosexuality.”

What was that distinction?

2. He also says “[…]the emergence of a specific male ‘homosexual role’, a specialized, despised and punished role which ‘keeps the bulk of society pure in rather the same way that the similar treatment of some kinds of criminal helps keep the rest of society law abiding”

What were the two effects this role had?

3. Gayle S. Rubin states: “The success of the anti-gay campaign ignited long simmering passions of the American right, and sparked an extensive movement to compress the boundaries of acceptable sexual behaviour.”

According to Rubin, what else did the right and far right link to “non-familial” or frivolous sexuality?

4. Rubin talks about a “line” between “good” sex and “bad” sex.  Describe what this means and the struggle over where to draw the line.