Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence QUOTES/CONNECTIONS

From what I understand and can wrap my head around from the article Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence by Adrienne Rich, is that to some people, “lesbian existence” is merely “temporary” and it is a psychological complex experienced by a woman. Many people accept the Oedipus complex for young boys because it is the first sign of a male being heterosexual, and eventually the boy should be able to move on from it, and not actually wish to kill his father and marry his mother. In the article, Nancy Chodorow expresses that lesbians have experienced the “reverse” Oedipal complex as children. She explains that while boys learn from it to associate male-female relationships as an “exclusive, primary relationship,” “the mother remains a primary internal object [to the lesbian], so that heterosexual relationships are on the model of a nonexclusive, second relationship for her”. I have never thought of lesbianism in this way before, and while I recognize lesbianism as being just as legitimate as any other sexual orientation, I found this view on it really interesting.

Another view on “lesbian existence” that was evident in the article is that lesbian women are just denying men out of spite for something a specific man or men in general have done to harm them in some way. Rich explains through examples from other relevant texts that, “women are “innately” sexually oriented only toward men, and… that the lesbian is simply acting out of her bitterness toward men,” so for a women to be sexually attracted to another woman is unnatural because women cannot reproduce with women alone, and that for a women to be emotionally attached to another women is only the result of men being emotionally unavailable. For so many people this understanding is as far as their discussion about homosexuality goes. Since biologically, the goal of all life in general is to be able live long enough to reproduce, even the “idea” of lesbianism shouldn’t “exist,” and the inability for reproduction to result from a homosexual relationship is the sole reason for it being “wrong.” This is where I feel “compulsory heterosexuality” stems.

It is obviously true that lesbians cannot naturally produce a child, nor can gay men, however, I do not feel that it is only biologically instilled in people that the only legitimate relationship is between a man and a woman, as even Ann Romney expressed in her speech at the Republican National Convention, saying that she and Mitt share a “REAL marriage”. Everywhere you look there are advertisements and messages that condition the mind into believing that heterosexuality is the only right way. This is even including where many women directly get advice on their health and wellbeing: the doctor’s office.

Almost everything that a medical professional advises to women is about how her health will in turn affect the health of her potential children. Rich sources pamphlets written by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English called Witches, Midwives and Nurses: A History of Women Healers and Complaints and Disorders: The Sexual Politics of Sickness, summarizing their thesis that, “advice given to American women by male health professionals, particularly in the areas of marital sex, maternity, and child care, has echoed the dictates of the economic marketplace and the role capitalism has needed women to play in production and/or reproduction.” This section drove me absolutely crazy. The more I thought about it, the more bizarre and utterly inescapable it became to me. From what I understand, the economy needs women to be heterosexual so that they will marry and reproduce with men, so that from even before their children are born they can make money off of things marketed to pregnant women; from items such as maternity clothes to special diets to headphones specifically made for a pregnant belly so an unborn child can listen to classical music. From the day their children are born, industries will make even more money off selling diapers, baby toys, baby clothes, baby food, baby lotion, and hundreds of nearly pointless items designed specifically for babies. Companies will continuously make money off parents, especially clothing companies around the ages where growth spurts occur and at the start of every school year. This cycle never ends because eventually these children will be adults, they will almost inevitably be brainwashed by advertisements to buy insanely expensive diamond rings, have insanely expensive weddings and then have even more babies, allowing big industries to make even more money. AHHH! We are in quite the unavoidable pickle, my friends.

I originally had a video up here of a comedy stand up by Bill Hicks on marketing, but i decided it might be inappropriate to post to a class assignment! I personally find it hilarious but I can see how someone could easily be offended by it. if you want to watch it all you have to search on youtube is "Bill Hicks marketing"