<%city%> <%country%>

One piece of a final exam I have written of which I am proud of is below. And yes, there are some mistakes and I could spend more time on the issue but I think this deserves some credit. :)

Q.- Compare and contrast Adrienne Rich’s article with Hollibaugh and Moraga’s and Stephen Seidman’s arguments regarding lesbianism as the promise of liberation from social control of sexuality. What is your informed critique of the idea of compulsory heterosexuality? What are the strengths of the idea of compulsory heterosexuality?


A.- What Rich writes in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence regarding lesbianism as the promise of liberation from social control of sexuality— “to encourage heterosexual feminists to examine heterosexuality as a political institution which disempowers women (p. 227)”, “…a perspective of unexamined heterocentricity (p.228)”, “…that we (women) are the emotional and sexual property of men, and that the autonomy and equality of women threaten family, religion, and state…the lesbian, unless in disguise, faces discrimination in hiring and harassment and violence in the street….but I think that heterosexual feminists will draw political strength for change from taking a critical stance toward the ideology which demands heterosexuality, and that lesbians cannot assume that we are untouched by that ideology and the institutions founded upon it.(p. 228)”, “ the assumption made by Rossi, that women are ‘innately’ sexually oriented toward men…those assumptions are widely current in literature and in the social sciences….the institution of heterosexuality itself as a bleachhead (beachhead) of male dominance. In none of them is the question ever raised as to whether, in a different context or other things being equal, women would choose heterosexual coupling and marriage…. the advice given to American women by male health professionals, particularly in the areas of marital sex, maternity, and child care, has echoed the dictates of the economic marketplace and the role capitalism has needed women to play in production and/or reproduction. (p.230)”, “Chodorow’s account barely glances at the constraints and sanctions which historically have enforced or ensured the coupling of women with men and obstructed or penalized women’s coupling or allying in independent groups with other women. (p.231)”, “I am suggesting that heterosexuality, like motherhood, needs to be recognized and studied as a political institution-even, or especially, by those individuals who feel they are, in their personal experience, the precursors of a new social relation between the sexes. (p.232)”, “ …adds to the cluster of forces within which women have been convinced that marriage and sexual orientation toward men are inevitable-even if unsatisfying or oppressive-components of their lives.…the use of cruelty, if played out in heterosexual pairing, is sexually ‘normal,’ while sensuality between women, including erotic mutuality and respect, is ‘queer,’ ‘sick,’ and either pornographic in itself or not very exciting… (p. 234).” “As sexual power is learned by adolescent boys through the social experience of their sex drive, so do girls learn that the locus of sexual power is male. Given the importance placed on the male…as a girl becomes aware of her own increasing sexual feelings…she turns away from her heretofore primary relationships with girlfriends…and she grows into male identification. (p. 237)” “…partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a ‘preference’ at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized, and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and ‘innately’ heterosexual. (p. 239)” “ …how could we ever begin to guess the numbers of women who are not prepared to risk a life alien to what they have been taught all their lives to believe was their ‘natural’ destiny-AND-their only expectation for ECONOMIC security…sever her marriage and marry a new male mate and…where she will (not) be remotely akin to an ‘outcast.’ Obviously this is not true for a woman who would end her marriage to take up life with another woman. (p.242)”

What Hollibaugh and Moraga write in What We’re Rollin Around in Bed With: Sexual Silences in Feminism regarding lesbianism as the promise of liberation from social control of sexuality– They are critiquing an essentialist debate saying that that the dichotomy that plays itself out isn’t always bad. Says feminism takes all the fun out of sex and does not address the issue of lesbianism and says heterosexuality is a political system.

What We’re Rollin Around in Bed With: Sexual Silences in Feminism talks about roles and power relationships, feminism and lesbianism and political or intellectual concepts rather than being sexualized. In that way, says that with feminism the personal is not political. Talks about how others perceive the body and the butch/femme relationship. Says, “We believe our racial and class backgrounds have a huge effect in determining how we perceived ourselves sexually (p. 404).” Also, “…where lesbianism came to be seen as the practice of feminism. It set up a “perfect” version of egalitarian sexuality, where we could magically leap over our heterosexist conditioning, into mutually orgasmic, struggle-free, trouble-free, sex. We feel this vision has become both misleading and damaging to many feminists, and in particular to many lesbians… Who can really live up to such an ideal? There is little language, little literature, that reflects the actual struggle of most lesbians, feminist or not (p.395).”

What Seidman writes in Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory regarding lesbianism as the promise of liberation from social control of sexuality– Seidman does not like the confines of labeling, such as lesbianism, but embraces postmodernism as the promise of liberation from social control of sexuality. Argues within post structuralism, the language barriers can be uplifted. Says there is no natural or essential way of being or doing things, given ones biology. Says identity politics is limiting in its defining nature.

My informed critique of the idea of compulsory heterosexuality is that is true that social institutions of patriarchy and capitalism enforce heterosexuality. For millennia women have been persecuted for not being dependant upon men. As times have changed and women are no longer dependant upon a male for the basic living needs the distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual terms have come into play. If most people or even all people are innately bisexual, then yes, social conditions do enforce heterosexuality. If one can be attracted to either “sex”, most would choose not to be ostracized. Enforcement of heterosexuality is a political institution and some women may have been abused emotionally and/or physically by the men in their lives, and thus turn to women for their emotional and sexual “needs”, but as not all lesbians have had this happen, and they have either both sexual attraction to and/or emotional closeness towards other women, it does not make sense that women would have a compulsion towards heterosexuality. I think biology and social interactions have a large part in what person displays their affection/sexuality towards whom. If, on the other hand, not most or all individuals are bisexual in nature, and opposites don’t necessarily attract, such as the “Other” gender, then heterosexuality is not compulsory. In search for an equality of the sexes in sexual relations, as supported by Hollibaugh and Moraga, who state, “ The point is that when you deny that roles, sadomasochism, fantasy, or any sexual differences that exist in the first place, you can only come up with neutered sexuality, where everybody’s got to be basically the same because anything different puts the element of power and deviation in there and threatens the whole picture (p.396).”

In the end, I think there is not enough evidence to say heterosexuality is completely “natural” and neither is lesbianism for women but may be compulsory for most if they have not examined where their sexuality has come from or been enforced.

<%city%> <%country%>

yes, tis I, STANDING. BEHOLD SHE STANDS!