Compulsory Heterosexuality

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Whilst I agree that some people can absolutely be coerced into heterosexuality by society at large (usually because of religion) that generally tends to happen to many gay males too. So if this institution does exist, does this mean that males are then expected to benefit from this "access" and that the failure to do so would result in being shunned ? Why? I mean the whole point of this "compulsory heterosexuality" would be more access to women. Why would males or society then turn around and demand that even gay males be in competition for females? Thereby reducing their (heterosexual males) own chances of getting laid.
It seems more like this author had a theory and then tried to fit the evidence around the conclusion. But then again, I didn't read it all. Far too short attention span.

I suggest reading some feminist theory on homophobia...the historical existence of gay men has not been as supressed the historical existence of lesbians. Homophobia is heavily linked to misogyny and regulating male sexual aggression towards females.

 

[SomeRandom]

I suggest reading some feminist theory on homophobia...the historical existence of gay men has not been as supressed the historical existence of lesbians. Homophobia is heavily linked to misogyny and regulating male sexual aggression towards females.

Feminist theory on homophobia? Why? Are they written by highly respected historians or other relevant experts in the field? Psychologists perhaps? Are they Sexologists even?
Also it's not a bloody competition of who was oppressed the most. And especially in art lesbianism seems to be more readily explored than male homosexuality. Baudelaire for example. Or maybe I just happen to own more classical and modern classic literature that features lesbianism. Which is possible. Lesbian literature seems to be its own genre.
Either way when male homosexuality is in classical literature it seems to be either hinted at (Oscar Wilde) or more to do with pedastry (like Homer.) Though Anais Nin does seem to play with male homosexuality in a rather erotic way. (I might have to re read my tantalising classic collection now. You've put me in the mood, no pun intended.) When lesbianism makes an appearance it's usually presented sensually instead, often ending badly though. But eh art imitates life and all that.

Maybe some homophobia is linked with misogyny. I can see misogyny being linked with being against lesbianism specifically.
But see this is why people like me are starting to distance themselves from Feminism. It's all very good to have theories. But it seems to turn into a contest for who was beat up on the most. Both gay males and gay females were historically ****ed over. There's not some prize for being the most ****ed over.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Bauderlaire? A male!...OK...
Your point is that gay men are also oppressed...yeah no one it's arguing against that. My point is that in feminist theory homophobia exists to regulate male sexual aggression and dominance towards women.
You said you have distanced yourself from feminist theory, that is interesting since this is a feminist ONLY forum. Maybe you're a humanist then? That's fine but then you shouldn't comment here.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Maybe I should be more clear...Rich's essay was discredited because gay men are oppressed too...yes...but why are they?
That's my point and it's
A) they have to be oppressed if you want to establish gender roles between the sexes
And
B) to keep males majority safe from sexual aggression and females majority victim

 

[dust1n]

The opening remark in the linked article, "Biologically men have only one innate orientation--a sexual one that draws them to women,--while women have two innate orientations, sexual toward men and reproductive toward their young." is reason enough (it's stupid) to dismiss all that follows, which I'm doing. As for your dilemma about your sexual orientation, there simply isn't enough information here to go on. Sorry.

Well, that doesn't really make sense since the quote you italicized isn't the words of the writer of the article the quote it is in, and then the author disagrees with the premise of a gender being innately attracted to the other...

 

[Skwim]

Well, that doesn't really make sense since the quote you italicized isn't the words of the writer of the article the quote it is in. . .

You're quite right. A real goof on my part.

 

[dust1n]

You're quite right. A real goof on my part.

No problem. To be fair, it wasn't very clear.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Thread closed for review.​

 

[Quintessence]

*** Thread Re-Opened***
​

 

[SomeRandom]

@Horrorble
Firstly I would like to apologise for getting your thread temporarily closed. I received the notification about my comments too late. Clearly I don't fully understand how a DIR works and I'm rather battle weary as of late with regards to anything feminism.
So while I stand by my comments, I will respectfully bow out of this thread and perhaps air my confusion in a more appropriate place.