The article “Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Politics in the United States” is about the role that society plays on sexuality and the evolution of gay and bisexual politics. It mentions statements that reflect the effects of war, labelling sexualities as identities, and the effects of homophobia. The goal of people who are not heterosexual is to not only get rid of the idea that people should only be heterosexual, but to also eliminate the idea of monosexism, the belief that people should only be attracted to one sex.
This article relates to the article “Sexual Intercourse” because at the beginning of “Sexual Intercourse”, it lists a group of questions including one in specific that asks what type of relationship should someone be in in order to have sexual intercourse and if they need to be of a different sex. It relates back to the idea that most people would say that someone should be in a committed relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Meanwhile, there are liberal people in the United States who are trying to get rid of the idea of monogamy and monosexism. In my opinion, if you are going to be something other than heterosexual, you nave the right to like both sexes, and if you are monogamous then you have the right to be able to like both, but choose which sex you would rather be with for the rest of your life.
“Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Politics in the United States” was an article I felt a slight dislike for. I may have interpreted wrong, but everyone has their own interpretations and nothing can ever be completely true. I did not like it very much because some clauses in the article seemed as if they were emphasizing that the only reason most people are heterosexual is because society is telling them to. For example:
“Sexualities are regulated by means of a very dense network pf social norms and rules.”
Why can’t heterosexual people just be heterosexual people because they want to base on experiences or what they like? Some people may be forced into sexuality by society, but I would think that percentage is not as large as the article makes it seem because one can only be influence by something outside of themselves if they allow it.
“It shapes individual’s lives and institutions from schools to mass media to the criminal justice system and the government.”
With this statement being said, I don’t believe all of these are exclusive to sexuality out of social norms. The government, I admit, does have a lot of instabilities with dealing with people who are other than heterosexual, but I do not see where school systems, mass media, and the criminal justice system has a large part of sexuality played into it. There were no specific examples in the text to help me understand any better. America’s criminal justice system, for the most part, is already broadly messed up so somebody cannot really blame something on sexuality just like in some instances, people are discouraged from pulling the race card because people of all nationalities have been wrongly convicted (even the “white man”). In this day in time, the mass media most are exposed to through music and reality television depict things that are not heterosexual or very conservative. In movies, it is more heterosexual couples that are depicted, but in some movies, there are multiple gender roles being expressed, especially in one of my favorite movies, “Burlesque”. I do not see how sexuality is expressed in schools either. Maybe it is because the school system I came up in had openly gay principals, teachers, and coaches, while even having happily married or single principals, teachers, and coaches.
Heterosexuals do have a more privileged status. Because of this, if you’re a homosexual, trans, queer, or whatever, you should express your individuality and fight for what you feel instead of being afraid and allowing society to control your consciousness. Everyone who was oppressed had to make it work at some point in their life, which shows that it is only a phase.
There are many origins of how things other than heterosexuality came to be; however, a lot of the origins fail to recognize influences, societal views, and experiences as the most driving factors. From my experience with people who are not heterosexual, only one has defended that they were born that way. I would never negatively confront someone about their decision; however I feel his decision could have been based more on societal influence on how gay men should act versus how straight men should act. Society takes it upon themselves to label before one can discover who they really are. Because this boy had a feminine nature, he was automatically labelled as gay so psychologically he could have begun to believe it. Now he believes any feminine guy is gay and any masculine girl is lesbian. There may have been other influencing factors, but I believe once one lets someone else define them before they have had the chance to, it can have a strong psychological effect.
In the way that sexualities are regulated based on “guide laws” is acceptable. In a nation of so many people, there should be laws created as a baseline because a large percentage of the population cannot handle basic responsibilities. In the instances that heterosexual people commit adultery or expose strange sexual fetishes, they can face the same social and/or political isolation as someone who is not heterosexual. At some point everyone is judged on the same basis by the extent of their decisions. I just find it odd how society can unknowingly be a driving force to someone’s decision, then bash the same person for making that decision. For example, the boy who society labelled as gay so he became gay, and now he’s the “predatory fag”. Also how media displays sexual images and music and easy access to pornography, but when someone engages in something they’ve seen, it’s a big deal. It is almost like an “I’ll show and tell you this and that, but you cannot do it.”