See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267333684

Heterosexuality

Chapter · January 2009

DOI: 10.4135/9781412964517.n207

CITATIONS READS
4 8,393

1 author:

Jimmie Manning
University of Nevada, Reno
108 PUBLICATIONS 1,491 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jimmie Manning on 28 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Heterosexuality : SAGE Knowledge http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/gender/n207.xml?hidePageNum&print

Northern Illinois University

Heterosexuality
Jimmie Manning
Heterosexuality is largely defined as attraction to the opposite sex, although the most rigid
definitions of the word demand an attraction to the opposite gender as well. Despite compelling
empirical studies and philosophical examinations suggesting that bisexuahty is a more apt
model of human attraction than is heterosexuality, individuals in most cultures identify as either
heterosexual or in a homosexual identity category (for [p. 414 ↓] example, lesbian, gay,
bisexual, or queer). Most people declare and enact a straight, heterosexual identity; even if
individuals engage in sexual behavior involving a partner or partners of the same sex, most
report that they still consider themselves to be heterosexual because they are primarily
attracted to persons of the opposite sex and gender. Because of the dominance of
heterosexuality, those labeled as heterosexual (collectively referred to as heterosexuals) are
often only labeled as such to acknowledge or designate that they are not gay or lesbian
(homosexual) or attracted to both sexes (bisexual). The expectation of heterosexuality,
combined with systems created to benefit heterosexual institutions, has created a world in
which many find it difficult to imagine sexual options beyond heterosexuality. This entry
describes various aspects of heterosexuality, such as heteronormativity, relationships,
compulsory heterosexuality, masculinity, female sexuality, and the family.

Heteronormativity
Heteronormativity refers to enforced cultural assumptions that heterosexuality is normal and
natural for all people. Researchers and activists have extended the term to acknowledge and
criticize the systemic accommodation and privileging of heterosexual people. For instance,
marriage is largely seen (and frequently institutionally restricted) as a heterosexual institution in
which only people of opposite sexes may exchange vows. Marriage is a readily apparent
example of heteronormativity; sometimes heteronormativity is more subtle. For example, fictive
movie and television programs often feature male-female couplings with a clearly masculine
man pursuing a clearly feminine woman. Such pairings confirm viewers' expectations that
romantic and idealized heterosexual couples feature strong masculine and highly feminine
figures.

Heteronormativity's dominance is evident in the ease with which many people transport the lens
outside the world of human interaction into other domains. Social scientific research has
demonstrated that people will often impose a heteronormative frame upon situations that do not
support it. For example, in one study, researchers asked people to view films of animals at play.
When researchers asked participants to describe what they saw, people—regardless of age or
sex—frequently assigned sex and gender roles to the animals based upon the way the animals
behaved while at play. These sex and gender roles extended to heterosexual assumptions: The
participants frequently identified pairs of animals as couples, with one labeled the male love
interest and the other female love interest. The animals depicted in the films were all of the
same sex. Sex and gender expectations— particularly expectations of heterosexuality—shaped
how the viewers saw the film.

Heterosexuality is automatically assumed for most humans as well. Unless a person comes out
as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or another nonstraight sexual orientation, then he or she will usually
1 of 5 12/3/2013 8:17 PM
Heterosexuality : SAGE Knowledge http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/gender/n207.xml?hidePageNum&print

be perceived as heterosexual. This is especially true when opposite sex persons are seen
together. If male and female teenagers are shopping together in the mall, others assume
heterosexual identity and that the two have a romantic attraction—even if the couple denies an
interest in each other. Only age differences and physical resemblance (suggesting kin
relationships) undermine the assumption of heterosexual coupling placed on two opposite sex
individuals. Even then, people may wonder whether or not the couple is romantically linked or if
they form a different type of relationship.

Heteronormativity and the Study of Relationships

Heteronormativity is routinely viewed through the lens of relationships. This makes sense, given
that the label is primarily used to designate one's sexual attraction. Social scientists have long
studied heterosexual relationships, chronicling detailed understandings of these relationships in
academic journals and textbooks. Understandings of the differences between heterosexual and
homosexual relationships, however, remain superficial because much relationship research
ignores issues of sexual orientation and assumes participants' heterosexuality. Recent research
on non-heteronormative relationships challenges this nearly exclusive heterosexual lens.
Interestingly enough, as researchers learn more about nonheterosexual phenomena, a stronger
understanding of heterosexuality has emerged. This plays into the common claim that
heterosexuality is often defined by what it is not (rather than what it actually is).

Compulsory Heterosexuality
Given the seemingly ubiquitous nature of heterosexuality and its dominance in influencing social
institutions, many critics have questioned whether the [p. 415 ↓] heteronormative nature of
most cultures is a healthy one. This question is particularly crucial to considering the voices that
such a culture excludes and the personal anguish that such a culture may cause to both
heterosexual and nonheterosexual individuals. As noted earlier in this entry, heterosexual labels
primarily designate one's sexual attraction, but the implications surrounding the label often
extend beyond sexual power to gender norms and expectations. Heteronormativity is so
dominant that many who study sexuality have employed the phrase compulsory heterosexuality
to describe the way people gravitate toward a heterosexual identity. The term emerges from the
work of Adrienne Rich, who wrote of compulsory heterosexuality in the context of women's lives
and lesbian existence.

Though Rich insisted that, given sexism, compulsory heterosexuality had particular
consequences for women, many have explored the experience and consequences of
compulsory heterosexuality beyond the lives of women. In these discussions, compulsory
heterosexuality is commonly defined as the ingrained notion that the only option in society is to
be straight. That is, heterosexuality is so successfully established as normal and natural in
everyday communication that the notion of homosexuality does not easily exist in the minds of
most people, especially as a sexual orientation for oneself. The expectation of heterosexuality,
combined with systems that value and benefit heterosexual expression, has created a world
where it is hard for many to imagine that options other than heterosexuality exist. For someone
to not see herself or himself as heterosexual is equated with lack of personal development, as
going through a phase, as confusion, or even as insanity.

Strongly linked to compulsory heterosexuality is the assumption that men and boys must enact
masculine roles and that women and girls must enact feminine roles, especially because the
performance of gender roles is inextricably linked to the assumption that individuals are
naturally heterosexual. Although sex and gender are two separate and distinct concepts, people
often treat them as if they are the same. When a male does not enact masculinity, or a female
does not enact femininity, then individuals notice this behavior and acknowledge the gender
violations by offering feedback, whether intentional or unintentional, verbal or nonverbal. For
example, when one man notices another man enacting feminine behavior, he may call the other
an anti-queer pejorative such as “fag” or “sissy.” In doing so, he likely is not asserting that the
other person is gay; rather, he is likely asserting that the other person is violating expected
gender norms. The choice of language, however, speaks to heterosexuality and
heteronormativity. “Fag” and other anti-queer pejoratives are inherently linked to sexual
2 of 5 12/3/2013 8:17 PM
Heterosexuality : SAGE Knowledge http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/gender/n207.xml?hidePageNum&print

orientation—even if not directly used that way. In practical and symbolic terms, such pejoratives
elucidate the subtle connections between sex, gender, and sexuality as they intersect with
language and nonverbal communication to form a culture that enforces compulsory
heterosexuality.

Masculinity and Heterosexuality

Although masculinity and femininity provide the building blocks for many cultural norms and
rituals, heteronormative and otherwise, masculinity is especially protected as a male domain
and lauded as superior set of gender characteristics. Although most cultures have began to
assimilate masculine and feminine identities, this blurring of gender lines has played out
differently for each of the gender roles. Women, as feminine figures, have been allowed to enact
more masculine roles than in previous generations, especially in Western culture. Women who
encroach too much upon these masculine liberties, however, often receive warning that their
behavior and self-presentation are not acceptable; these warnings take the form of, for
example, pejorative name calling and gendered violence, including rape. Even though men
have also begun to employ behaviors and practices conventionally considered feminine, men
do not have the same freedom to enjoy feminine characterizations as women have to enjoy the
masculine. Ironically, women's greater freedom reflects the devaluing of femininity.

The protection of masculinity has played out in many ways, crossing even into legal domains.
Laws making it illegal for two individuals to engage in sodomy, for instance, were common in the
United States before the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Such laws prevented
a man from enacting the passive, femininelike role of receiving anal sex. Few laws existed,
however, preventing women from engaging in same-sex activity. Additionally, in traditionally
masculine domains such as the military, rules such as “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” allow a
heteronormative environment to thrive and protect a conventionally masculine space. Even [p.
416 ↓] such entertainment arenas as sports remain highly masculine, with men's sporting
events and institutions receiving much greater attention and resources than those for women
players and spectators.

Masculinity is almost inherently linked with heterosexual identity. For instance, masculinity and
straightness share a common vocabulary that excludes highly expressive words, discussion of
emotion, or heightened displays of affection. Male talk—and so therefore masculine talk, and so
therefore straight talk—frequently includes discussions of sports, tools, machinery, or the
weather, and, in a heteronormative vocabulary, it should not encroach upon such feminine
topics as gardening, fashion, or soap operas—at least, not without a proper and exceptional
situation or context. Many men report that they feel limited by the conversations they are
allowed to have; they point out that this often causes them mental anguish or extreme
frustration. This is but one example of how heterosexual masculinity may play out in unhealthy
ways for those confined by it.

Other problems with heterosexual masculinity play out through systems developed around
heterosexual dominance. Because males remain privileged in most social systems, the
demonstration of their masculinity easily violates the rights and comfort of women. One example
is sexual harassment. Men who sexually harass women are not the workplace norm, and many
institutions have established policies that help protect women (and men) from sexually
harassment. Nevertheless, many feminists note that cultural indicators in many workplaces
indirectly support sexual harassment and make it difficult for women to come forth with claims,
especially because the enactment of a man sexually harassing a woman conforms to
heterosexual expectations and practices. That is, heterosexual tradition has long deemed men
leaders in their domains, thus allowing them power through which they can assert authority with
little question or critique. Women are easily pursued and harassed by men, then, because men
feel free to be sexually assertive in a male-dominated, heteronormative world. To better
understand this, one must consider the role of female sexuality in a heteronormative world.

Female Sexuality
Ultimately, heterosexuality represents societal expectations for the sexual pairing of men and
3 of 5 12/3/2013 8:17 PM
Heterosexuality : SAGE Knowledge http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/gender/n207.xml?hidePageNum&print

women. Theoretically, this could be an egalitarian arrangement in which women's and men's
sexuality and gender are on equal terms and the sexual behavior fully consensual. The reality,
however, is that women in heterosexual relationships are often the objects of men, and their
sexuality is supplementary to men's wishes and desires. The heterosexual relationship is one in
which men are both free to explore their sexuality without backlash or warning from other
members of the culture, and free to assert their gaze upon females. Women, then, are expected
to play into these roles, serving as the pursued responding to the man in pursuit. This helps
explain why women's clothes are often tighter and feature low cuts, why makeup and
accessories are more prominent with women, and why men frequently make the first move in
heterosexual relationships.

Although it is far from equal to male sexuality, female sexuality in heterosexual systems and
relationships is beginning to transform; women are beginning to enjoy some of the freedoms
previously reserved for men. Women who pursue sexual relationships outside of marital
institutions experience less shame and stigma, and both news-oriented and fictive media
representations increasingly portray women as sexual creatures outside of the confines of
male-dictated pleasure. Far beyond these freedoms are the liberties that women can now enjoy
as the conditions of heterosexual relationships change. Women who sought divorce were once
outcast and condemned to a life of solitude, even when leaving relationships in which their
husbands had verbally abused, beaten, or raped them. Women now have greater freedom to
divorce without social stigma. Women also report feeling less pressure to marry or have
children, something that many would have considered unacceptable just 50 years ago.

Heteronormativity and the Family

Heteronormativity has had a profound influence on the institution of the family. For generations,
most of Western culture has viewed families traditionally, with a father, mother, and children
living together, supporting one another, and sharing resources. As heterosexual norms have
changed, so too have family structures. Families are now less traditional, with research
suggesting that family units consisting of single-parent households, same-sex parents, or
homes without children functioning in ways much like traditional families. Current political
discourse emphasizes [p. 417 ↓] family structures and the maintenance of systems that allow
families to thrive. However, what constitutes a family is the subject of heated debate.

The Potential to Be Heterosexual

Unlike most minority categories, where individuals are perceived to be unable to change their
features to join another identity category, those who do not identify as heterosexual are
sometimes considered able to choose heterosexuality and to ignore their same-sex attractions.
Although most psychologists dismiss the possibility of changing one's sexual orientation, this
has not quieted views that sexual orientation is open to negotiation. The strong web of
heteronormativity has meant that this belief in negotiation applies only to homosexual desire
and behaviors and not to heterosexual relationships. Interestingly, because heterosexuality is so
easily assumed, many who do feel as if they are lesbian, gay, transgendered, or bisexual can
easily conceal their nonheterosexual orientations or gender identities and remain in the closet.

Intersexuality and Bisexuality

Discussions of heterosexuality and heteronormativity often completely ignore intersexual and
bisexual individuals. Intersexed persons, or persons who biologically exhibit characteristics of
both sexes, often report feeling that they must choose a male or female sex role to adhere to
the demands of society. Often the sex role enacted is influenced by sexual orientation, with the
individual identifying as female if generally attracted to males and as male if generally attracted
to females. Intersexuality is largely unrecognized in most cultures. Bisexuality is ignored in most
cultures, too, with most individuals identifying or being perceived as either lesbian/gay or
heterosexual. Further, most people will self-identify in homosexual categories (gay, lesbian) or
as heterosexual (straight) even when they harbor attractions to the same sex. This has caused
many to question whether heterosexuality or homosexuality truly exist or if they are categories
constructed in a society that is uncomfortable with fluidity and that demands rigid

4 of 5 12/3/2013 8:17 PM
Heterosexuality : SAGE Knowledge http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/gender/n207.xml?hidePageNum&print

understandings. Research surveys have repeatedly demonstrated that those who do not fall into
either heterosexual or homosexual categories are often perceived as not being trustworthy and
that those who were perceived as heterosexual were noted by those participating in the surveys
as the most trustworthy of all. Research also indicates that those not fitting into the opposite
categories of homosexual and heterosexual generate unease, and heterosexual identities are
the most comfortable for interaction.

Conclusion
Heterosexuality is interweaved into many cultural practices and coexists with many other
gendered institutions. Although heterosexuality is often defined by what it is not, it is evident that
what it is allows for much thought about how sex, gender, and sexuality play out in cultures.

Jimmie Manning

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964517.n207 (http://dx.doi.org/10.4135
/9781412964517.n207)
See also

Bisexuality (n46.xml#n46)
Compulsory Heterosexuality (n87.xml#n87)
Heterosexual Privilege (n208.xml#n208)
Homosexuality (n214.xml#n214)

Further Readings

Berlant, L., & Warner, M. (2003). Sex in public. In R. J. Cober, ed. & S. Valocchi (Eds.), Queer
studies: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. pp. 170–183). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Cameron, D. (1999). Performing gender identity: Young men's talk and the construction of
heterosexual masculinity. In A. Jaworski, ed. & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp.
pp. 442–458). New York: Routledge.

Elia, J. P. (2003). Queering relationships: Toward a paradigmatic shift. In G. A. Yep, ed. , K. E.

Lovaas, ed. , & J. P. Elia (Eds.), Queer theory and communication: From disciplining queers to
queering the discipline(s) (pp. pp. 61–86). New York: Harrington Park.

Fischer, A. H., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2005). Corporate masculinity. In P. Essed, ed. , D. T.
Goldberg, ed. , & A. Kobayashi (Eds.), A companion to gender studies (pp. pp. 62–71). Maiden,
MA: Blackwell.

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. Washington Square: University of New York.

Nencel, L. (2005). Heterosexuality. In P. Essed, ed. , D. T. Goldberg, ed. , & A. Kobayashi

(Eds.), A companion to gender studies (pp. pp. 132–144). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Rich, A. C. (1986). Blood, bread, and poetry: Selected prose, 1979–1985. New York: Norton.

Yep, G. A. (2003). The violence of heteronormativity in communication studies: Notes on injury,

healing, and queer world—making. In G. A. Yep, ed. , K. E. Lovaas, ed. , & J. P. Elia (Eds.),
Queer theory and communication: From disciplining queers to queering the discipline(s) (pp. pp.
11–59). New York: Harrington Park.

5 of 5 View publication stats

12/3/2013 8:17 PM