• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Compulsory Heterosexuality

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
https://readthenothing.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/richcompulsuryhet.pdf

Erm I don't know what I really want to discuss in particular, I just thought I'd leave some literature about what I've very recently read that made me question my attraction to men and sexual orientation in general.
I think if my current relationship doesn't work out, hopefully with support from sisters I might be able to try female separatism in order to try and connect with myself and other women more authentically. Maybe. I don't know.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The opening remark in the linked article, "Biologically men have only one innate orientation--a sexual one that draws them to women,--while women have two innate orientations, sexual toward men and reproductive toward their young." is reason enough (it's stupid) to dismiss all that follows, which I'm doing. As for your dilemma about your sexual orientation, there simply isn't enough information here to go on. Sorry.
 

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
The opening remark in the linked article, "Biologically men have only one innate orientation--a sexual one that draws them to women,--while women have two innate orientations, sexual toward men and reproductive toward their young." is reason enough (it's stupid) to dismiss all that follows, which I'm doing. As for your dilemma about your sexual orientation, there simply isn't enough information here to go on. Sorry.
This is feminist forum created for the pupose of dicussing feminist theory...why are you here?
 

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
You didn't exactly supply a reason why this should be in the feminist category or even generate a discussion really.
What is this mess? Why you coming here if you clearly do not read feminist theory? If you did you woukd know at least a tiny bit about heterosexuality as an institution and wouldnt even question why this is in the feminist forum.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The opening remark in the linked article, "Biologically men have only one innate orientation--a sexual one that draws them to women,--while women have two innate orientations, sexual toward men and reproductive toward their young." is reason enough (it's stupid) to dismiss all that follows, which I'm doing. As for your dilemma about your sexual orientation, there simply isn't enough information here to go on. Sorry.

To discuss feminism. Why do you ask?

You didn't exactly supply a reason why this should be in the feminist category or even generate a discussion really.

I'm a human, believe it or not. Why am I being ad-homonym'ed for no reason?

Unprecedented claim based on false inferences made which make no significant contribution to the conversation at hand.

Why don't you enlighten me instead of making this pointless post then?
Reading the first few pages of the document you shared I have found many reasons to discredit this specific document. Why not explain to me why this is here instead of expecting me to know about whatever issue your talking about. From a glance it really doesn't appear to be a feminist issue.
She put it in the Feminist Only section.

Members are under no obligation to explain why their post gets to exist in the category they posted it in. She posted her thread in the Feminist Only section, which is not a subforum that is meant for debate.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wasn't saying her post didn't deserve to be in the forum. Was asking what sort of conversation she was hoping to generate with it.
We are capable of reading the section at the top of the forum.

OP also indicated they were interested in discussion above
I invite you to re-read your posts so far in the thread and honestly ask yourself if they are written in a non-debate way that matches the non-debate nature of this subforum.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Compulsory heterosexuality? I'm sorry but is one of those shoddy Gender Studies "theories" I keep hearing about? I mean, there's examining aspects of society and then there's gender studies. If you know what I'm saying.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
https://readthenothing.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/richcompulsuryhet.pdf

Erm I don't know what I really want to discuss in particular, I just thought I'd leave some literature about what I've very recently read that made me question my attraction to men and sexual orientation in general.
I think if my current relationship doesn't work out, hopefully with support from sisters I might be able to try female separatism in order to try and connect with myself and other women more authentically. Maybe. I don't know.
Is there anything about the literature in particular that led you to question your sexual attraction?

From the Article said:
The bias of compulsory heterosexuality, through which lesbian experience is perceived on a scale ranging from deviant to abhorrent, or simply rendered invisible, could be illustrated from many other texts than the two just preceding. The assumption made by Rossi, that women are "innately sexually oriented" toward men, or by Lessing, that the lesbian choice is simply an acting-out of bitterness toward men, are by no means theirs alone; they are widely current in literature and in the social sciences.

Basically, I have trouble relating to such a passage written 35 years ago. This document is from 1980, and lists references primarily from the 60's and 70's, back when homosexuality in general was literally classified as a mental illness in the United States and other places, and when some homosexual acts were still criminalized in some parts of the UK. From the bias of heterosexuality back then, both male-male and female-female sexuality was considered deviant and abhorrent. Fortunately many societies have come a long way since then. Is there a particular passage in the article that you feel relates a lot to your life, and that led you to question these things?

I personally don't feel heterosexuality is culturally compulsory for me, although other people may feel differently for themselves. If anything it just feels biologically compulsory for me. I've dabbled intimately with both men and to some extent women, and I just don't feel attracted to women much, but I'm significantly attracted to men.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The insinuation that questioning anything a feminist says means that you can't be a feminist yourself.
So does your post question the validity of non-debate subforums in general, or is it particular to feminism and this thread?

Non-debate in a feminist-only area doesn't mean everyone in agreement. It means feminists discuss something.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
So does your post question the validity of non-debate subforums in general, or is it particular to feminism and this thread?

Non-debate in a feminist-only area doesn't mean everyone in agreement. It means feminists discuss something.

I don't understand what was confusing about my statement.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
https://readthenothing.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/richcompulsuryhet.pdf

Erm I don't know what I really want to discuss in particular, I just thought I'd leave some literature about what I've very recently read that made me question my attraction to men and sexual orientation in general.
I think if my current relationship doesn't work out, hopefully with support from sisters I might be able to try female separatism in order to try and connect with myself and other women more authentically. Maybe. I don't know.

Thanks for the link. The second page makes it much clearer as it is trying to spell out the issue that lesbianism is marginalised in feminist discourse and literature. The author is therefore accusing 'feminists' of neglecting this aspect of women's liberation of accepting 'hetrosexual norms' of society. I wouldn't have thought about that, but its like bisexual erasure in reference to discussions of homosexuality, as well as discussions of homosexuality amongst men.

sexual orientation can be quite fluid (speaking as a male bisexual) but it is not really a choice (as you would seem to be implying but I'm not sure). It goes deeper into our psyche that the conscious realm of reason. if you've had same-sex attractions in the past (or have someone in mind), it is useful to come out to people because concealing that aspect of ourselves is damaging.

psychologically it is quite complex and involves many changes to our identity, and is not limited to narrow definition of "sexuality" (the physical act of sex) as it changes how we feel about other things formerly associated with the sense of self. e.g. my taste in music has changed somewhat as I wrestle with reconcilling bisexuality with masculinity- I'm just semi-conscious that the process is going on, but I'm listening to alot more 'heavy bass' music now, and I sort of know because its about feeling 'masculine'. it tends to be associated with 'dominance' rather than the more 'feminine' classical music I used to like [but it was beethoven who was all about 'making some noise' and annoying people.] . so gender norms and identity have come up, and I'd imagine they would change quite alot in a female seperatist society. men cease to be 'dominant' and women have to figure out where that leaves them; do they want to be dominant in some sense, or continue with pre-existing gender roles emerging out of patriarchial society?

I know of female seperatism, but I haven't heard it from people who take it seriously, so my knowledge of it is very limited. I would compare it to racial seperatism (such as black seperatism/black nationalism in the US, e.g. the Republic of New Afrika) in that we are assuming that white men are inherently oppressive and part of the partrachail/racist power structure. I would argue that it is more a question of a 'false consciousness' of social relations are naturally inequal, and in its way both racial and feminist seperatism perpetuate power inequalities by avoiding confronting the oppressers. its understandable, but segregation (by those who are oppressed) ultimately leaves the system of oppression unchanged.
 

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
Ok I have to answer some things in parts sorry. I read the essay quite quickly so forgive me if I'm wrong, but she's not just saying lesbianism has been neglected in feminist discourse but also that women no matter what orientation are coerced under compulsory heterosexuality which she argues is an institution in order to guarantee male sexual access to women. She explains how that happens in harmful ways and that female separatism can benefit women in allowing them to develop a more authentic sexually which they have been denied.

Another example of compulsory heterosexuality that I don't think was mentioned in the essay is the invasive painful procedures that some intersex girls have had to endure, in order to make their vaginas large enough to have intercourse.

Yes I was coerced into heterosexuality through expectation and I'm questioning in what ways my attraction to men are innate and in what ways they are socially constructed.
 

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
I don't think Rich was saying that in female separatism we do not confront our oppressors. She argues that we can actually fight male dominance by denying male access (when we can) into the centre of our lives and focusing on strengthing sisterhood instead. She gives some examples of where this has happened and benefited the women involved. All the while continuing to organise politically I guess.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Whilst I agree that some people can absolutely be coerced into heterosexuality by society at large (usually because of religion) that generally tends to happen to many gay males too. So if this institution does exist, does this mean that males are then expected to benefit from this "access" and that the failure to do so would result in being shunned ? Why? I mean the whole point of this "compulsory heterosexuality" would be more access to women. Why would males or society then turn around and demand that even gay males be in competition for females? Thereby reducing their (heterosexual males) own chances of getting laid.
It seems more like this author had a theory and then tried to fit the evidence around the conclusion. But then again, I didn't read it all. Far too short attention span.
 
Top