Mouthrules and the Construction of Sexual Identities

Abstract

The current work on the sociology of the body has shown it to be a key site of both the production of meaning and of regulation. There has however been little attention given to particular 'body parts'. The research presented here suggests that mouths are particularly symbolic and that our oral hygiene habits are not just disciplinary techniques, but are one way in which our particular sexual and gender identities are constituted. This article, drawing on a series of in-depth interviews with lesbians and heterosexual men and women, explores how our 'mouthrules', that is, what we do and more particularly don't do, with our mouths, construct, through the notion of intimacy, the contours of sexuality and gender. Differences are apparent between the groups. Developing Douglas's (1966) theory of 'grid' and 'group', it is suggested that adherence to mouthrules takes place along two axes: the level of personal 'strictness' with which rules are applied (grid) and the rigidity of the gender/sex boundaries within which mouthrules are organized (group). The conclusion is drawn that, through the performance of these apparently trivial aspects of daily life we are performing aspects of our gender and sexual identities.

The domestication of an everyday health technology: A case study of electric toothbrushes

“…This echoes the findings of Thorogood's (2000) analysis of ‘mouth rules' that the space classified as ‘inside' (a mouth) is where intimacy is often produced. As such, detritus from the mouth is deemed private (the inside coming out and making it ‘matter out of place' (Douglas, 1966)), and cleaning one's teeth (especially ‘spitting out') becomes subject to rules of intimacy.…”

“…Wong (2012), for instance, details the importance of focus group data in the design of a market leader of the late 1980s, described as a ‘distinctive, attractive, expensive-looking toothbrush' (Wong, 2012, p. 32) as well as one which cleaned without damaging gums. That dental technologies are so prominent at this nexus of health, aesthetics and consumer identity is perhaps not surprising given the social importance of the mouth, which ‘holds a peculiarly symbolic position, being the space through which things pass both into and out of bodies' (Thorogood, 2000, p. 167). In this sense, the mouth has been an object of anthropological investigation as a key boundary between the self and society, or the body and the outside, and thus a potentially risky site of transfer (Nettleton, 1988).…”

“…This boundary is not a simple border between the individual body and that which lies outside, but one that is negotiated to include or exclude particular social bodies that are more or less ‘inside'. The ‘mouth rules' which Thorogood (2000) analyses are those conventions and taboos by which social distinctions (family, intimates) are marked and constituted by appropriate and inappropriate crossings between the mouths of individuals. Apart from Thorogood's analysis of ‘mouth rules' and the work of Nettleton (1991, 1992) on dental discourses and governance, there has been relatively little sociological work on dental health in general (Exley, 2009), and even less on dental technologies.…”

Oral Sex, Young People, and Gendered Narratives of Reciprocity

“…Feminist theorists have foregrounded symbolic meanings of mouths and genitals: "Oral sex is an encounter of two of the most intensely inscribed and invested areas of the body in our culture: an encounter of the most public site, the face/head, with the most private, the genitals" (Roberts, Kippax, Spongberg, & Crawford, 1996, p. 9). As mouths are constructed as susceptible to contagion (Nettleton, 1988), the perceived cleanliness of different body parts is a key criterion defining our "mouthrules"-the social rules governing what we will (or will not) consider putting in our mouths (Thorogood, 2000). As Thorogood (2000) explained, "to allow something 'inside' [the mouth] is to allow it 'emotional closeness', to accord it the status of intimacy […] to keep it at an emotional and social distance, i.e.…”

“…As mouths are constructed as susceptible to contagion (Nettleton, 1988), the perceived cleanliness of different body parts is a key criterion defining our "mouthrules"-the social rules governing what we will (or will not) consider putting in our mouths (Thorogood, 2000). As Thorogood (2000) explained, "to allow something 'inside' [the mouth] is to allow it 'emotional closeness', to accord it the status of intimacy […] to keep it at an emotional and social distance, i.e. 'outside' yourself, it has to be constructed as 'dirt'" (p. 177).…”