Maurice/Halperin

The question of sex versus sexuality seems to be the differences and similarities between E.M. Forester's "Maurice" and Halperin's "Is There a History of Sexuality?" Halperin's first definition of sexuality suggests that it is a seperate domain of psychophysical nature. Sexuality in my eyes has been something deeper than the physical appetite. Sex on the other hand is something in which seems to be purely physical. When sexuality combines with either love, lust, passion, eroticism (such as Halperin suggests), affection, and desire, the relationship between two people can be extended into sex. This in turn can result in the act of sex.
Halperin's third point of defining sexuality states that sexuality generates sexual identity. This can definately be true, but to what extent does one's sexuality define who they are? Sexuality seen as to identify an individual, seems to only extend to the Athnenians. It in fact did show their status in society. The superordinate group had the advantage over the subordinate group. The superior was always considered the penetrator. The sexual adventures of the Athenians were considered a vaible form of living. Eventhough the athenian superordinate group had the advantage of being with whom they chose to, there were still social constraints in the sense that, if they desidered to be the pentrated, they would definately be looked down upon. Although the level of intimacy and the people did not matter, their position in a sexual act reflected their social status.
In "Maurice" the social contraint was not neccessarily a matter of status, but in fact a matter of labels and norms. Men are to be with women without any other exceptions. Their social status does not give them the liberty to have sexual relations with whom they choose. Halperin makes it seem that these sexual relations are purely for sexual gratification, in Maurice, the relationship between the two young men is more of a emotional connection. I perceived Maurice to have more of a sexual nature, because he is the one who seemed to have initiated a more physical contact. Clive and Maurice's relationship went beyond the physical, because they did not engage in a deeply intimate physical relationship.
Society seems to always get in the way of personal preference. It can be religious views, political affiliation, which most times reflect religious views, friends, family, pretty much your overall environment. We have devided society into classses and now we have divided society into sexual preferences. Now, not only do we not have a division of class, but also a division that is sepcifically integrated into our sexual preferences. At least in the case of the Athenians, they had the choice to be with whom they desired, for the most part. With homosexuality and every other sexual classification, we get a whole new set of discrimnation and "subordinate" group; that is looked at in this manner by some people.
What is the purpose for classification? I guess there are many different answers to that question, but with history in the mix of it all, it has only caused social restraints to those who are affected by the classification. In turn, some decide to lead the life that suits the society best and will be more accepting. Others, choose to lead the life that is most personally fullfilling. I believe that this is what happened between Clive and Maurice. Maurice chose Scudder and Clive chose Anne, a woman. This also shows that regardless of social contraints upon our personal life, some still choose to be against what some may call "normal".