Unlike sex, the history of sexuality depends on society and is limited by its language in order to be defined and understood. In his article entitled Is There A History of Sexuality, Halperin drew a distinction between the themes of sexuality and sex. He claimed that the two concepts are distinct ideas. According to Halperin, sex is a natural function that has not changed for many years, if at all. He says that sex “is a natural fact, rooted in the functioning of the body and, as such, it lies outside of history and culture” (Halperin 416). This means that gender cannot be measured in historical thought, because it has not changed since the dawn of time. As a natural function, it will continue to exist without the influence of culture, because it has always existed within the natural body. Sexuality, on the other hand, is a completely different issue to consider. Sexuality is a socially created phenomenon or, as Halperin says, “sexuality is not a somatic fact, it is a cultural effect” (Halperin 416). This means that sexuality depends entirely on the social world because it is created by the social world. Halperin opposes the dominant concept that our sexual activities in themselves make statements about our sexuality. Halperin states that "one of the currently unquestioned assumptions about sexual experience that the study of antiquity calls into question is the assumption that sexual behavior reflects or expresses an individual's 'sexuality'" ( Halperin 417). With this statement, Halperin raises the question of what exactly sexuality is and how to define it. Specifically, Halperin says that the modern concept of sexuality cannot be applied to sexualities supposedly expressed... middle of paper ... the person themselves, and as such, only last as long as that identity as chosen by the individual. Works Cited Halperin, David. “Is there a sexuality story?.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove, ed. Michele Aina Barale and Ed. David M. Halperin. New York: Routledge, 1993. 416-431. Print. Kennedy, Elizabeth Lapovsky and Madeline Davis. “The Reproduction of Butch-Fem Roles: A Social Constructionist Approach.” Passion and power: sexuality in history. Ed. Kathy Peiss and Ed. Christine Simmons. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1989. 241-256. Print.Rayter, Scott. “Butch/Fem in the 1950s.” Sexuality: theories, histories, cultures. University of Toronto, Toronto. October 11, 2011. Classroom lecture. Rayter, Scott. “Identity transformations”. Sexuality: theories, histories, cultures. University of Toronto, Toronto. September 20, 2011. Classroom conference.