Sex and sexuality are integral to social life. Sexuality intersects with major institutions such as family, law, religion, media, and education. Social norms regulate sexual behaviors, and categories of identity shaped by ideologies about sex and sexuality are deeply embedded in racial and imperial histories. Despite the pervasive nature of sex and sexuality in societies worldwide, the subfield of sex and sexuality remains marginalized within mainstream sociology. While progress has been made since Claude Bowman’s 1949 assertion that “a sociology of sex does not exist,” there is still much to be done in promoting the visibility and legitimacy of this field. The growing attention to the sociology of sex and sexuality is driven by both scholarly interest and significant social changes, which highlight the need for deeper understanding of social processes. Research has shed light on issues such as abortion restrictions and gender-neutral bathrooms, while also emphasizing the importance of pleasure and joy in sexual studies. This journal seeks to address the historical marginalization of sex and sexuality within sociology, envisioning a platform to explore its intersectionality and broader impact on communities. Through this journal, we aim to challenge existing frameworks and highlight innovative research in sex and sexualities.

Sexual ambivalence—sex that is simultaneously wanted and unwanted—is not unusual in young women’s experiences with heterosex. Elucidating how gender and sexuality contribute to ambivalence is important for understanding how social forces shape oft-hidden sexual behaviors that affect women’s well-being. We draw on 20 interviews with young women in the United States to argue that mixed feelings about sex (psychological ambivalence) could stem from conflicting norms about heterosex (sociological ambivalence). Participants recalled wanting sex with partners because the characteristics met one set of social norms that valorized the encounters, but also discussed simultaneously not wanting those same experiences because of coexisting norms that stigmatized their behaviors. Such mixed feelings contributed to some women’s unease about experiences that they understood as explicitly consensual. In the end, the study highlights the importance of attending to the sociological study of ambivalence and its role in theorizing access to pleasurable, not just consensual, sex.

Abortion has been alternately legalized and criminalized, tacitly approved of, and stigmatized, in various settings over time. The contours of its treatment are dependent on social and political contexts, including concern over women's sexuality, but it is not clear that existing conceptual frameworks enable expansive examination of the relationship between abortion and sexuality. We conduct a critical interpretive synthesis review of the literature that jointly engages with sexuality and abortion, focusing on the U.S., to highlight the frameworks that authors use to understand the relationship between the two. We find two conceptual frameworks of abortion and sexuality in operation: one that treats the two as discrete, causal variables that operate at the individual level; and another that focuses on how beliefs about what constitutes (in)appropriate sexuality explain ideological positions on abortion. We identify limitations of both frameworks and propose a new conceptual framework - one that highlights sexual embodiment - to inspire future research in this area and generate opportunities for knowledge extension. Such an approach, we contend, can elucidate broader social forces that shape both abortion and sexuality and bring research on abortion into conversation with recent scholarship on the important role of sexuality in other sexual and reproductive domains.

OBJECTIVE:In the United States, restrictive abortion policies are concentrated in a subset of states. Little research has examined how people who consider abortion make sense of abortion obtainability and the extent of regulation of abortion care in their state. STUDY DESIGN:We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 pregnant women in Maryland, a state with high abortion service availability and few policies restricting abortion, and 28 pregnant women in Louisiana, a state with low service availability and numerous restrictions, who had considered but not obtained an abortion for their pregnancy. We analyzed findings using inductive qualitative analytic techniques. RESULTS:All participants were financially struggling. Most participants in Maryland considered abortion easy to get, while a plurality of participants in Louisiana considered abortion difficult to get. Yet, despite their measurable differences in access, participants in both states considered abortion generally obtainable. Participants in Louisiana who thought abortion difficult to get, but nonetheless obtainable, cited strategies that they already employed for other challenges in their lives as options for overcoming abortion barriers. CONCLUSIONS:Pregnant women who consider abortion and are subject to restrictions do not necessarily perceive restrictions as barriers. Their accounts illustrate how those impacted by restrictions adapt to constraints on their reproductive autonomy just as they manage many other challenges that restrict their freedom to live self-determined lives. IMPLICATIONS:Financially struggling pregnant people who considered abortion in Louisiana did not perceive restrictions as barriers to abortion, illustrating the broader adoption of strategies to deal with constraints among women living on low incomes.

While researchers have explored in detail how multiracial identification shapes symbolic boundaries (conceptual distinctions), they have paid less attention to its effects on social boundaries (how people behave). This study examines multiracial individuals’ odds of marriage and cohabitation with blacks and whites to examine whether this population challenges current race-based social boundaries via partner choice. Analyses of data from the 2008–2012 American Community Survey (ACS) show that while those who identify with more than one race are indeed more likely to have a black (white) partner than their nonblack (nonwhite) monoracial counterparts, this phenomenon is driven by the choices of multiracials with at least a part black (white) identity. For example, multivariate results show that multiracial individuals who do not report any white identity are not more likely than nonwhite monoracials to marry a white partner. Moreover, part-white multiracials are more likely than nonwhite multiracials to have a white partner. These findings largely reflect expectations derived from theories of ingroup/outgroup behavior. In sum, although multiracial individuals may contribute to challenging symbolic boundaries, the results suggest that they are not necessarily disproportionately likely to challenge race-based social boundaries via their partner choices.