Heterosexual by Default, Homosexual by Deviation

Throughout everyday life, most people make predictions and have expectations about other people’s thoughts and behaviors. Additionally, most people need some sort of external reference to make these predictions. This external reference could be race, ethnicity, gender performance, age, socioeconomic status, dress, or a combination of the above. The problem with these predictions is that they are almost entirely based on broad cultural stereotypes that often do not include opportunities for individual variation. One such stereotype involves sexual orientation. People often presume that others are heterosexual, or that heterosexuality is the default and nonheterosexuality is a deviation from that default. The theory of heteronormativity has both theoretical and practical implications, including binary thinking, intolerance of others, and hierarchical value structures.

Heteronormativity is a cultural phenomenon that is based in the different ways that societies make rules and norms surrounding sexual activity. In societies with heteronormative ideologies, heterosexuality is preferred above all other forms of sexuality. This is due to the social construction of sexuality in heteronormative cultures. The social constructionist theory suggests that different cultures give different labels and meanings to sexual thinking and behavior, which affects the ways that people in those cultures experience sexuality. According to Jeffrey Weeks, “the West still defines the norms of sex in relationships to one of the possible results -- reproduction” (Weeks, 1986). Reproduction is inherently heterosexual. Try as they might, two women cannot combine their DNA to create new life like a man and a woman can. Therefore, heterosexual reproduction becomes the ideal of sexual behavior between two people. A corollary of this is that nonreproductive sexual behaviors are less socially-desirable than reproductive sexual behaviors. This corollary helps to explain why there is a broad social preference for intercourse over masturbation. Gayle Rubin (1992) wrote that “the powerful nineteenth-century stigma on masturbation lingers in less potent, modified forms, such as the idea that masturbation is an inferior substitute for partnered encounters.” In heteronormative cultures, “normal” sexuality is socially constructed to involve reproductive, heterosexual behaviors. Conversely, “alternative/deviant” sexuality involves nonreproductive and/or nonheterosexual behaviors. Due to the heterosexual construction of sexuality in many Western cultures, certain sexual behaviors are designated as “deviant” and are open to be mocked and ridiculed by society at large.

Due to the social construction of sexuality in the Western world, a hierarchy exists that determines the social value of sexual identities. Gayle Rubin suggests that “marital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the top of the erotic pyramid” (1992). She goes on to write that “stable, long-term lesbian and gay couples are verging on respectability, but bar dykes and promiscuous gay men are hovering just above the groups at the very bottom of the pyramid” (Rubin, 1992). In this way, monogamous, reproductive heterosexuality is valued socially above all other forms of sexuality. Partnered, long-term, heterosexual relationships are valued above all other forms of sexual relationships. Sexual encounters that occur between two people are “partnered” encounters, and are part of the preferred forms of sexuality, which helps to explain the social taboo on masturbation. Long-term relationships are also favored over short-term relationships, which is why there is cultural restriction against very short-term relationships like one-night stands. Also, heterosexual relationships are preferred over nonheterosexual relationships. Certain sexual preferences and acts are valued over others, which results in the social hierarchy of eroticism.

The definitions of heterosexuality relate to its broad social normalization. By default, people are labeled as heterosexual under heteronormative ideologies. Sexual normalcy is often defined “in terms of relations with the opposite sex, and the consequent categorization of other forms as deviant” (Weeks, 1986). First, gender is defined as the opposition of male and female; other gender identities are not included in the definition of heterosexuality. Under this definition, a transgender person cannot identify as heterosexual. Secondly, all nonheterosexual identities are described as deviation from normalcy. A broad heteronormative ideology predicts that heterosexuality is normal, and nonheterosexuality is deviant. “Deviance” carries a connotation of strange, bizarre, and not fit for social acceptance. Therefore, nonheterosexuality is outside the range of culturally acceptable behaviors and practices. Yet again, heterosexuality is at the top of Rubin’s “erotic hierarchy,” with all other forms of sexuality below it.

Heteronormativity also reflects social norms surrounding gender roles. The presumption of heterosexuality suggests that heterosexuals conform to traditional gender roles. A key aspect of the Western construction of masculine identities is their sexual attraction to women. Nonheterosexual men “fail” at their masculine identity because they are not sexually attracted to women. When a man does not show externalized sexual interest in women, he will probably be considered “gay” by others because an essential part of masculine identity is the sexual pursuit of women. Nonheterosexual identities are lower on the social hierarchy of sexuality than heterosexual identities. At the same time, some presume that pervasive, forceful sexuality is essential to masculinity. In this way, heterosexual and nonheterosexual men are constructed similarly. Women are often instructed to resist sexual advances made by men, while men are encouraged to accept all sexual offers. Men with nonheterosexual identities are often constructed as having the same pervasive, forceful sexuality. This assumption results in the perceived “homosexual threat” posed by homosexual men (Yep, 2002). It is possible that gay men are seen as more of a homosexual threat than lesbians, which may explain why most personal observations of negative homosexuality are often of male homosexuality. In this way, the construction of sexuality also involves gender norms, which deviance from symbolizes a deviation in sexuality.

Bisexuals and bisexuality are also questioned by society in ways that heterosexuals and heterosexuality are not. Intolerance of bisexuals is often manifested in the “denial of the very existence of bisexual people” (Ochs, 1996). This intolerance exists because “we live in a culture that thinks in binary categories” (Ochs, 1996). In discussions of sexuality, most people often discuss heterosexuality and homosexuality. The omission of other categories implies that there are only two classes of sexuality. Ochs suggests that bisexuality is overlooked because it is more difficult to classify bisexuals into either heterosexuality or homosexuality, and this difficulty makes people profoundly uncomfortable (1996). Heterosexuality is often the default sexuality, and homosexuality is constructed as the opposite of heterosexuality, and as such, bisexuality does not fit in to that binary classification system. Additionally, bisexuality is often associated with nonmonogamy (Ochs, 1996). Bisexuals are attracted to people of more than one gender, and it is often assumed that bisexuals will have simultaneous relationships with people of one of more of those attractive genders. In the social hierarchy discussed earlier, this gives bisexuality an undue connotation of sexual encounters that occur in nonmonogamous, short-term relationships, which are valued at a lower level that monogamous, long-term relationships. There is a social assumption that most sexual encounters occur in heterosexual monogamous contexts, but bisexuality defies that rationale. Bisexuality does not fit in to the binary categories of sexual identity and also has an unnecessary relationship to nonmonogamy, which gives bisexuality a lower social standing than heterosexuality.

Heteronormativity is the broad social assumption that almost everyone is heterosexual, which makes heterosexuality the “default” sexuality. All other sexual identities fall below heterosexuality on a sociocultural hierarchy of sexual orientation. The ideology of heteronormativity falls under traditional gender roles. Additionally, heteronormativity excludes bisexuality as a valid sexual identity due to the problems with binary categories. Overall, heteronormativity creates a social environment that is intolerant of nonheterosexual identities.

Works Cited
Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B.A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 217-239.
Rubin, G. (1992). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and Danger: Exploring female sexuality. New York: Routledge Press, pp. 267-319.
Weeks, J. (1986). Sexuality. London: Horwood & Tavistock Press, pp. 19-44.
Yep, G. (2002). From homophobia and heterosexism to heteronormativity: Toward the development of a model of queer interventions in the university classroom. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(3), 163-176.

My Theory on Sex - December 2005

A long-standing debate within the social sciences has been the root of human behavior and thinking: biology or society. This debate has been summarized by two main theories: social constructionism, which posits that thinking and behavior are based on society’s rules, and essentialism that suggests that personality is inborn, and that all people have innate, immutable traits. However, I believe that both of these theories are inaccurate. If social constructionism was correct all of the time, then there would be very few similarities between different cultures and historical periods because cultures are very different by time and place. Alternatively, if essentialism was correct all of the time, then more people would be very similar cross-culturally and cultures would be more similar across time and place. I hypothesize that the basis of human thinking and behavior is biology and certain innate characteristics, but the culture and society in which one lives modifies these characteristics. This model includes both biological and social influences, and suggests that these influences interact with each other to create individual personalities. For example, imagine two brothers that are one year apart in age. They are so close in age, that they are likely to have similar experiences culturally. They are also raised by the same parents and have similar genetics. However, practical experience tells us that it is highly unlikely that these two boys would be alike in every single way. They both have inborn personality traits that they do not share with their brother and that make them individuals, rather than very similar. Now imagine that these boys were raised in 8th century China. The time and place of their birth has changed, but their innate personality traits have not changed. It still seems likely that the different culture in which they were raised would also have an effect on their personalities. When examining the root of human behavior and thinking, it is important to recognize the influences of both biology and culture, because neither exist without the other.

Gender is one of the most common dichotomies in Western culture. However, it has been suggested recently that gender should be viewed as following a continuum, with traditional notions of “male” and “female” and the ends of that continuum. This conceptualization allows for more individual variation than previous models because there are more than two “options” for gender. A person can fall at any point on the continuum of gender, without being forced into an archaic binary system. In addition, it reflects the observation that most people do not conform to all aspects of traditional gender norms. I predict that most people would reside close to the polar ends, with very few people being at the exact poles. If this were true, then most people would conform to many aspects of gender norms, but not all. This model also helps to deconstruct the notion that “male” and “female” are mutually exclusive. An individual’s gender will probably reflects some traditional notions about both genders, with a greater adherence to the norms of one particular gender. Conceptualizing gender as a continuum is more reflective of the ways that gender is expressed in recent Western culture.

In the fields of psychology and human sexuality, female desire is often viewed as a complement to male desire, meaning that women are only interested in sex because men are interested in sex. This ideology reinforces a deficiency model of gender and denies female sexual agency. First, “maleness” is frequently constructed to be the ideal gender form, and that all other forms of gender are less valuable than male gender (a deficiency model). This leads to a greater tolerance of non-male variations in gender. For example, in Western societies, there is a greater tolerance of female transgressions of gender (i.e. wearing pants) than male transgressions (i.e. wearing a skirt). Additionally, those who identify as male may face greater criticism if they challenge their seemingly concordant sexual identity, or they identify as male and nonheterosexual. Secondly, in modern U.S. culture, women have a great deal of sexual agency. Denying this is to suggest that women are passive sexual partners who only exist as a place to hold babies until they are ready to be born. It also expresses heteronormativity, which many theorists have recently criticized. Gender forms should be constructed as equally valuable and not so that one gender is preferred above all others.