Question 3 Heterosexuality falls under the category of an institution and is supported by various other institutions. Heterosexuality as an institution shapes gender norms and puts a set of standards on sexuality that may be deviated from or broken (Walden 2016). Institutions such as: education, religion, media, the state, and even medicine reinforce hegemonic heterosexuality. To understand institutional reinforcement of heterosexuality, heterosexual imaginary must be understood. Ingraham defines the imaginary as, “that illusory relationship we can have to our real conditions of existence” (239: 2003). In this, heterosexual imaginary is able to establish the regulation of sexuality through institutions such as, state laws and even healthcare …show more content…
Another example if from the state, states may reinforce hegemonic heterosexuality by offering better benefits or more protection to those that fall under the hegemonic script (Walden 2016). Ingraham offers support for the protection factor stating, “heterosexuality is naturally a site for tranquility and safety,” which displays hegemonic heterosexuality’s institutional support (240: 2003). In addition, Ingraham expounds, “heterosexuality – as an ideology and as an institution – upholds all those aspects of female oppression” (237: 2003). She goes on to explain that the workplace, an institution, oppresses women by how women are used; mostly by women’s housework (Ingraham 2002). These examples illustrate institutional social control that reinforces the concept of hegemonic heterosexuality. Furthermore, rituals are also supportive of hegemonic heterosexuality, and some rituals are considered institutions. Walden defines rituals as, “stylized, recognized, repetitive activities or events that elicit strong ‘spontaneous’ feeling and make institutions come alive” (2016). Ingraham’s article focuses on the ritual of weddings, which she thinks, “becomes synonymous with heterosexuality” (240: 2003). Thus heterosexuality is brought to life in the ritual …show more content…
In this, people in society have weddings due to the normality that surrounds this specific ritual. Ingraham views weddings as a performance of consumptive capitalist heteronormativity, and for adults to be apart of this larger consumer society they need to buy items that will put on a traditional wedding (Ingraham 2003, Walden 2016). Ingraham writes, “the engine driving the wedding market has mostly to do with the romancing of heterosexuality in the interest of capitalism” (2003: 243). Ingraham’s discussion of capitalism allows for the construction of global inequality through the concept of a wedding. For example, a wedding ring has become customary in marriage, however the diamonds used for these rings has caused “colonial wars, apartheid, racist violence, massive labor abuses,” in other nations (Ingraham 2003: 242). Wedding rings have become a norm in the institution of marriage, thus a product of heternormativity. In addition to the display of global inequality, the concept of heterosexuality imaginary surfaces. Ingraham argues, “when diamond engagement rings and weddings [are viewed] as ‘only natural,’ conditions such as these remain unimaginable and
In an effort to legitimize all subcategories of sexuality considered deviant of heterosexual normatively, queer theory acknowledges nontraditional sexual identities by rejecting the rigid notion of stabilized sexuality. It shares the ideals of gender theory, applying to sexuality the idea that gender is a performative adherence to capitalist structures that inform society of what it means to be male, female, gay, and straight. An individual’s conformity to sexual or gendered expectations indicates both perpetration and victimization of the systemic oppression laid down by patriarchal foundations in the interest of maintaining power within a small group of people. Seeking to deconstruct the absolute nature of binary opposition, queer theory highlights and celebrates literary examples of gray areas specifically regarding sexual orientation, and questions those which solidify heterosexuality as the “norm”, and anything outside of it as the “other”.
There is one day out of the year when you see sights of couples everywhere: Valentine’s Day. You see individuals out in stores buying roses, large teddy bears and grabbing the last remaining chocolate candy boxes that are left on the shelves. But if you are imagining a man and a woman as the couple you’re visioning, you are in for a surprise. A man and a woman isn’t the only way to go through life as how a couple should look. In fact, it is estimated over 100,000 monogamous people in the Unites States are performing polygamy secretly with their partner’s full permission. These popular nonmonogamous relationships do not match to the cultural norm of a loving couple in love for life. One of the most difficult aspects of multiculturalism is the determination to adapt to some cultural groups’ needs involving certain traditional practices that might clash with the ideas of multiculturalism and self-governing civil rights. Normally, many of these exercises have religious roots, but these are not limited. Some important cases are certain rights of opening exercises: spiritual and religious. For most of the cases, a smaller group’s traditional exercises are against the norms of a typical society but also organize a substantial aspect of the way of life for that certain culture. Some samples of polygamy in Islam, female circumcision in Eastern Africa nations, or Ta-moko, as referred to as tattooing of the face, in the culture of Maori. The most crucial topic around these established practices in the multiculturalism debate is the idea of agreement. Yet, not all exercises are achieved with the agreement of the subjects. Some cultures and historic periods are seen to embrace polyamory, while other cul...
For example, “sociological and popular understanding of gay and lesbian relationships has been greatly distorted by the false presumption that only heterosexual relationships are normal ways of expressing sexual intimacy and love” (Andersen 1997, 95). This explains how society helps in influencing and identifying people sexual identities throughout their lifetime. Andersen admits that “heterosexual identity includes the belief that men have an overpowering sex drive and that women are considered more loving, soft and are link to sex [… and] contemporary sexual attitudes are shaped by phallocentric thinking-that which sees men as powerful and women as weak” (Andersen 1997, 94, 96). Although, society is lead to believe that men should be the dominant figure of the family. The reality is that, in gay and lesbian relationships, no one individual displays the behavior of an authoritative
Monogamy is a cultural norm that dominates many modern societies, and when individuals engage in monogamous relationships, they are unconsciously conforming to historical and cultural legacies of what is perceived as love that predate their illusions of personal agency. Although anthropological records indicate that 85% of human societies have tended towards polygamy (Henrich, Boyd and Richerson 2012), the modern culture of monogamy has rapidly risen and spread in the past millennium (Senthilingam 2016). This demonstrates how an individual’s conception of a heterosexual relationship as normatively monogamous has been constructed by social forces. In addition, social forces in the form of state legislation also perpetuate and reinforce an individual’s conception of what a romantic relationship should entail. Monogamous heterosexual marriage remains to be the only form of marriage with legal recognition in many countries. An individual’s belief that a romantic relationship should culminate in marriage is hence not formed through independent thought, but rather through what is considered normative by law. Essentially, “marriage is not an instinct but an institution.” (Berger 1963, 88) because it is enabled and promoted by virtue of the law. In addition, many couples believe in
Over the past couple centuries that the United States has existed, society has always had a judgement to make on one’s sexuality. At the head of society has consistently been white, Christian, hetereosexual males; therefore, they had the power to define sexual and societal norms. As a result, judgements on one’s sexuality have always intersected with one’s race, class or gender, groups of people that are not dominating society.
In the essay “Why The M Word Matters To Me” by Andrew Sullivan, he states “This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love” (159). A student’s response to this statement made by Sullivan prompted him to claim that Sullivan was not speaking about marriage itself - as a concept, more rather weddings in particular within his essay. I fully agree with this student’s response and as a result, I shall be thoroughly analyzing the validity of his claim outright.
In the publication Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism, author Patricia Hill Collins, she discusses sexism, gender and the new racism. Collins discusses that heterosexuality operates as a hegemonic ideology that influences human sexuality, racism, and psychological processes (Collins 2004 p.37). This placement of heterosexuality at the top, positions it as the basis of understanding sexuality. For example Collins illustrates that the term sexuality itself is used so synonymously with heterosexuality that schools, churches, and other social institutions treat heterosexuality as natural, normal, and inevitable (Collins 2004 p.37). This in turn facilitates stigmatization of individuals who engage
In my opinion, only after we learn to respect all kinds of differences out of majority we are able to have liberal minds, which makes the world a better place to live for all people. That is the reason I decided to write my paper on compulsory heterosexuality. To come to main idea, my arguement will be dominantly on heteronormativity. I will try to prove that both heteronormativity and gender are social constructs, which means that they are all learned behaviours by society through culture, tradition and religion. I will show a world where any norms and taboos exist, to turn our origins of nature. I will support my arguement by the works of writers and researchers on that topic. My whole effort will be on to claim that there is nothing called heteronormativity by nature, it can not be. We can not rule out the genes and instinct behaviour of people. It is just a coverage, to live in a reproductive and moral society.
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
It has been said that “Society has always defined for us what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, what a man should be like and what a woman should be like, and these traditional definitions of gender roles have limited and even harmed individuals”. The theme of sexual politics comes to mind for this quote. One can define sexual politics as the relationship of the sexes, male and female regarding power. Society’s definition of this can limit an individual in their gender role and restrain a person to not be themselves.
Integrating scripting theory with the compulsory heterosexuality theory, a heteronormative, dominant sexual script was explicated, the Heterosexual Script (Sorsoli; Collins; Zylbergold; Schooler & Tolman 2007 p. 145-157). Traditionally, societies have encouraged both men and women to obey different sexual scripts (Laws and Schwartz 1977). This heterosexual scripts has been commented to be extremely gendered as well as breeding gender inequality (Pascoe 2007) and this essay aims to depict the means in which it is gendered along with its influences towards men and women in Western’s
As Tamsin Wilton explains in her piece, “Which One’s the Man? The Heterosexualisation of Lesbian Sex,” society has fronted that heterosexuality, or desire for the opposite sex, is the norm. However, the reason behind why this is the case is left out. Rather, Wilton claims that “heterosexual desire is [an] eroticised power difference [because] heterosexual desire originates in the power relationship between men and women” (161). This social struggle for power forces the majority of individuals into male-female based relationships because most women are unable to overcome the oppressive cycle society has led them into. Whereas heterosexual relationships are made up of the male (the oppressor) and the female (the victim who is unable to fight against the oppressor), homosexual relationships involve two or more individuals that have been freed from their oppressor-oppressed roles.
Sexual attraction is an everyday part of life that has different effects on each person. In the following paper I am going to discuss the different types of sexual attraction for adolescences ages 12-20, early adulthood ages 20-30, mature adulthood 30-65, and older adults age 65 and older. Sexual attraction: which sex are you attracted to, or are you attracted to both men and women? Then we have sexual behavior: what sex are your partners? And finally, we have sexual identity: how do you think of yourself are you gay, straight, or bisexual? Some of us develop feelings of attraction to a one type of sex before we self-label
The relationship between sex and gender can be argued in many different lights. All of which complicated lights. Each individual beholds a sexual identity and a gender identity, with the argument of perceiving these identities however way they wish to perceive them. However, the impact of gender on our identities and on our bodies and how they play out is often taken for granted in various ways. Gender issues continue to be a hugely important topic within contemporary modern society. I intend to help the reader understand that femininities and masculinities is a social constructed concept and whether the binary categories of “male” and “female” are adequate concepts for understanding and organising contemporary social life with discussing the experiences of individuals and groups who have resisted these labels and forged new identities.
Gender and sexuality can be comprehended through social science. Social science is “the study of human society and of individual relationships in and to society” (free dictionary, 2009). The study of social science deals with different aspects of society such as politics, economics, and the social aspects of society. Gender identity is closely interlinked with social science as it is based on an identity of an individual in the society. Sexuality is “the condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex” (free dictionary, 2009). There are different gender identities such as male, female, gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual that exists all around the world. There is inequality in gender identities and dominance of a male regardless of which sexuality they fall under. The males are superior over the females and gays superior over the lesbians, however it different depending on the place and circumstances. This paper will look at the gender roles and stereotypes, social policy, and homosexuality from a modern and a traditional society perspective. The three different areas will be compared by the two different societies to understand how much changes has occurred and whether or not anything has really changed. In general a traditional society is more conservative where as a modern society is fundamentally liberal. This is to say that a traditional society lists certain roles depending on the gender and there are stereotypes that are connected with the genders. One must obey the one that is dominant and make decisions. On the other hand, a modern society is lenient, It accepts the individual’s identity and sexuality. There is no inequality and everyone in the society is to be seen as individuals not a part of a family unit...