Unlike sex, the history of sexuality depends on society and is limited by its language to be defined and understood. In his article titled Is There A History of Sexuality, Halperin drew a distinction between the topics of sexuality and sex. He stated that the two concepts are separate ideas. According to Halperin, sex is a natural function that has not changed for many years, if ever. He says that sex “is a natural fact, rooted in the functioning of the body and, as such, lies outside of history and culture” (Halperin 416). This means that sex cannot be measured in historical thinking, because it has not changed since the beginning of time. As a natural function, it will continue to exist without the influence of culture, as 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 argues against the prevailing notion that our sexual activities make statements about our sexuality in and of themselves. 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 it can be defined. Specifically, Halperin is saying that the modern concept of sexuality cannot be applied to the supposedly expressed sexualities... at the center of the card... to the person themselves, and as such, lasts only as long as that identity as chosen by the individual. Works Cited Halperin, David. “Is there a history of sexuality?” 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. Cristina 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 lesson.Rayter, Scott. "Transformations of identity". Sexuality: theories, histories, cultures. University of Toronto, Toronto. September 20, 2011. Classroom lesson.