Individuals are exposed to compulsory heterosexuality from birth and therefore those that are in the sexual minority must explore their understanding of themselves in contrast with society. In Sandra Lipsitz study she sets out to prove that, contrast to what was once believed, sexual minorities psychologically have a greater "global identity development".[1] Along with the polarization of the sexes comes the hierarchy. It is argued the dissolving of the barriers would remove sexism.[2]
Religion:
Much of religion invokes a binary model for sexuality.[3] For example tracing back to the bible which includes Adam and Eve as the beginning of humanity. As well as specific texts including this one from Leviticus, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."[4] Religious institutions throughout history have had strict moral guidelines when it came to marriage and what is deemed expectable in the eyes of God. This directly translates to compulsory heterosexuality in society though influence of leaders of the church as well as devout followers of this belief.[5]
Evolutionary Theory:
A major drive for compulsory heterosexuality is that of evolution. It ties a sexual orientation's worth with reproduction. Evolutionarily speaking in order to further the species offspring must be created and therefore genes are past on.[6] This basic understanding of biology is then taken steps further implicating heterosexuality as the "natural" form and therefore making homosexuality specifically as well as any minority sexuality "abnormal".[7] As Seidman puts it, science is “a powerful practical-moral force”.
Though, evolutionary arguments have implications in minority sexualities they also directly impact the stereotypes of heterosexual relationships and especially concepts of masculinity. Arguments for men being the hunter are then applied to today's understanding of the male gender being superior.[6] The flip side of this understanding is the influence of this on the female gender. Them being depicted as the weaker sex and their main function being childbearing. These understandings however do not include ideas of morality, which is what is being applied to them.[7]
Missing:
It also lacks a coherent structure that separates it into categories. For example there is a distinctive section for lesbianism, but the section for gay as an oriantation is within the section about males.
Bibliography:
Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. "Dismantling gender polarization and compulsory heterosexuality: Should we turn the volume down or up?." Journal of Sex Research 32.4 (1995): 329-334.
Konik, J. and Stewart, A. (2004), Sexual Identity Development in the Context of Compulsory Heterosexuality. Journal of Personality, 72: 815–844. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00281.
Seidman, S. Sex Res Soc Policy (2009), Critique of Compulsory Heterosexuality. 6: 18. doi:10.1525/srsp.2009.6.1.18
McCaughey, Martha. (1996) “Perverting Evolutionary Narratives of Heterosexual Masculinity; Or, Getting Rid of the Heterosexual Bug.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3:2- 3, pp. 261-287. (ISSN: 1064-2684) [Dec 1999] The version of record can be accessed from the publisher, Duke University Press at: doi:10.1215/10642684-3-2-3-261
Comstock, Gary David, and Susan E. Henking. Que(e)rying Religion: A Critical Anthology. New York: Continuum, 1997. Print.
 | This is a user sandbox of Eerisman. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
- ^ Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. "Dismantling gender polarization and compulsory heterosexuality: Should we turn the volume down or up?." Journal of Sex Research 32.4 (1995): 329-334.
- ^ Konik, J. and Stewart, A. (2004), Sexual Identity Development in the Context of Compulsory Heterosexuality. Journal of Personality, 72: 815–844. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00281.x
- ^ Comstock, Gary David, and Susan E. Henking. Que(e)rying Religion: A Critical Anthology. New York: Continuum, 1997. Print.
- ^ King James Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible, 1973. Print.
- ^ Birden, S., L. L. Gaither, and S. Laird. "The Struggle Over the Text: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Educational Policy." Educational Policy 14.5 (2000): 638-63. Sage Journals
- ^ a b Sanderson, Stephen K. The Evolution of Human Sociality: A Darwinian Conflict Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Print.
- ^ a b McCaughey, Martha. (1996) “Perverting Evolutionary Narratives of Heterosexual Masculinity; Or, Getting Rid of the Heterosexual Bug.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3:2- 3, pp. 261-287. (ISSN: 1064-2684) [Dec 1999] The version of record can be accessed from the publisher, Duke University Press at: doi:10.1215/10642684-3-2-3-261