Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

by Adrienne Rich

"Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" is a 1980 essay by Adrienne Rich, which was also published in her 1986 book Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose 1979-1985 as a part of the radical feminism movement of the late '60s, '70s, and '80s. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" is a text that is constructed to think about and inspire change about lesbian visibility, structures of lesbian sexuality, and the role of literary criticism in relationship to lesbianism. Adrienne Rich argues that heterosexuality is not "natural" or intrinsic in human instincts, but an institution imposed upon many cultures and societies that render women in a subordinate situation. It was written to challenge the erasure of lesbian existence from a large amount of scholarly feminist literature. It was not written to widen divisions but to encourage heterosexual feminists to examine heterosexuality as a political institution which disempowers women and to change it.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Queer, LGBT, Lesbian, Essays, Theory

32 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1980

About the author

Works, notably Diving into the Wreck (1973), of American poet and essayist Adrienne Rich champion such causes as pacifism, feminism, and civil rights for gays and lesbians.

A mother bore Adrienne Cecile Rich, a feminist, to a middle-class family with parents, who educated her until she entered public school in the fourth grade. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Radcliffe college in 1951, the same year of her first book of poems, A Change of World. That volume, chosen by W. H. Auden for the Yale Series of Younger Poets Award, and her next, The Diamond Cutters and Other Poems (1955), earned her a reputation as an elegant, controlled stylist.

In the 1960s, however, Rich began a dramatic shift away from her earlier mode as she took up political and feminist themes and stylistic experimentation in such works as Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law (1963), The Necessities of Life (1966), Leaflets (1969), and The Will to Change (1971). In Diving into the Wreck (1973) and The Dream of a Common Language (1978), she continued to experiment with form and to deal with the experiences and aspirations of women from a feminist perspective.

In addition to her poetry, Rich has published many essays on poetry, feminism, motherhood, and lesbianism. Her recent collections include An Atlas of the Difficult World (1991) and Dark Fields of the Republic: Poems 1991–1995 (1995).

Reviews

[Ruth Marner · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book that got me kicked out of graduate school.

[Destynie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This essay changed my life and should be required reading for all women regardless of sexuality. It makes me so sad to think about how much lesbian history has been erased and how much invalidation lesbians still face in a patriarchal, heteronormative society, and how many lesbians are out there who don't know and will never know because compulsory heterosexuality and internalized homophobia is so strong.

Rich asserts that compulsory heterosexuality is not innate or natural or a choice, but rather a political institution that serves to maintain gender inequalities and misogynistic social constructs. It focuses on the lesbian experience in particular and the specific shared struggles of overcoming compulsory heterosexuality, but I think even heterosexual women who are quite confident in that identity and have never questioned it could probably learn and understand a lot about their personal attraction to men, the various power relations in their lives, and their oppression and objectification in different contexts due to pressures from society to form, value, and prioritize relationships with men above all others.

My one complaint is her use of the term "lesbian" to encompass all female relationships as the term is already so misused and misunderstood. Another issue is that it's obviously outdated and exclusive of the experiences of bisexual and trans women. There's also a problematic bit in there about gay men, but I think the point of that was to reiterate that the lesbian experience is entirely different from theirs, so it shouldn't be lumped together as it frequently has.

Overall, this is a really important and groundbreaking piece that helped me understand my identity as a lesbian woman in ways I never thought about previously, and inspired me to seek out more of Rich's work and lesbian-feminist literature.

[anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

i was gonna say that my lesbianism leveled up with each word but actually i just felt myself more pronouncedly on the lesbian continuum

[persephone ☾ · Rating 5 out of 5]

tell me who cries whilst reading feminist & lesbian theory ? well me for some reason :)

[Rayna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Adrienne Rich made some good points but went off the rails in a way that basically nullifies anything good there could have been about this essay. In Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, she begins by criticising the works of heterosexual writers who made the assumption in their writings that all women are innately heterosexual, or ignored or dismissed the existence and validity of lesbian relationships.

[Nancy Chodorow] argues that women want children because their heterosexual relationships lack richness and intensity, that in having a child a woman seeks to recreate her own intense relationship with her mother. [...] Neglecting the covert socializations and the overt forces that have channeled women into marriage and heterosexual romance, pressures ranging from the selling of daughters to postindustrial economics to the silences of literature to the images of the television screen, she, like [Dorothy] Dinnerstein, is stuck with trying to reform a manmade institution—compulsory heterosexuality—as if, despite profound emotional impulses and complementarities drawing women toward women, there is a mystical/biological heterosexual inclination, a "preference" or "choice" that draws women toward men.
[...]
The extension of this assumption is the frequently heard assertion that in a world of genuine equality, where men were nonoppressive and nurturing, everyone would be bisexual. Such a notion blurs and sentimentalizes the actualities within which women have experienced sexuality[...] (It also assumes that women who have chosen women have done so simply because men are oppressive and emotionally unavailable: which still fails to account for women who continue to pursue relationships with oppressive and/or emotionally unsatisfying men.)

Bold mine. Rich seems to be saying that some women innately lack attraction to men, and by extension that sexual orientation is innate. She is arguing against the homophobic idea that women pursue relationships with women only because they had bad experiences with men. She also argues that some women partner with men against their true nature or preference because heterosexuality is institutionalised in patriarchy, meaning that women are coerced through various means to participate in heterosexual relationships and adopt a male-centric sexuality; and kept from exploring their own genuine sexuality. This is really only true of women who are forced to engage in heterosexuality, such as in forced marriage or prostitution. This isn't true for heterosexual and bisexual women in general, who partner with men because they are attracted to men.

Building on the work of Kathleen Gough in her essay "The Origin of the Family," Rich highlights the characteristics of men's power to 1) deny women their own sexuality, 2) force male sexuality upon women, 3) exploit women's labour, 4) control or rob women of their children, 5) confine women physically and prevent their movement, 6) use women as objects in male transactions, 7) cramp women's creativeness, and 8) withhold education and culture from women. Rich emphasises that it is important to recognise these methods of male power as reinforcing heterosexuality, and she provides various examples (such as prostitution).

If Rich had used this list to discuss how male oppression of women impacts lesbian women specifically, and makes lesbians suppress their attraction to women, then maybe the term "compulsory heterosexuality" wouldn't be such a crappy term.

Instead, she undermines her message about the naturalness of lesbianism by suggesting that the definition of lesbianism should expand to include experiences that are not lesbian.

I mean the term lesbian continuum to include a range—through each woman's life and throughout history—of woman-identified experience; not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman. If we expand it to embrace many more forms of primary intensity between and among women, including the sharing of a rich inner life, the bonding against male tyranny, the giving and receiving of practical and political support[...]—we begin to grasp breadths of female history and psychology that have lain out of reach as a consequence of limited, mostly clinical, definitions of "lesbianism."

Bold mine. A bit later on she writes:

If we consider the possibility that all women—from the infant suckling her mother's breast, to the grown woman experiencing orgasmic sensations while suckling her own child, perhaps recalling her mother's milk-smell in her own; to two women, like Virginia Woolf's Chloe and Olivia, who share a laboratory; to the woman dying at ninety, touched and handled by women—exist on a lesbian continuum, we can see ourselves as moving in and out of this continuum, whether we identify ourselves as lesbian or not. It allows us to connect aspects of woman-identification as diverse as the impudent, intimate girl-friendships of eight- or nine-year-olds and the banding together of those women of the twelfth and fifteenth centuries known as Beguines who "shared houses, rented to one another, bequeathed houses to their room-mates . . . in cheap subdivided houses in the artisans' area of town," who "practiced Christian virtue on their own, dressing and living simply and not associating with men"[...]

Note how earlier Rich rejects the notion that women who have intimate relationships exclusively with women are only doing so because men are misogynistic and emotionally unsatisfying rather than because they are expressing their true and natural desires which would exist regardless of patriarchy. But now she says that women "bonding against male tyranny" and "not associating with men" falls on a continuum of lesbianism. This is both contradictory and as beneficial to lesbians as punching ourselves in the face. It is a huge disservice to lesbians to view non-lesbian women as one of us because 1) lesbians are then made to give up important words and language to describe ourselves and our experiences, 2) we rob ourselves of a cohesive lesbian community based on our shared sexuality (exclusive attraction to women), and 3) non-lesbian women contribute to the oppression of lesbians and non-lesbians appropriating our identity further invisibilises and marginalises us.

There is nothing lesbian about a mother breastfeeding her baby, and that suggestion is creepy and gross; nor are women preparing a dead woman's body for a funeral participating in an act of lesbian solidarity. Women raising healthy daughters and bonding with other women are noble goals that I support wholeheartedly but they are not lesbian acts. Women fighting against male supremacy and refusing to associate with men are noble goals that I support wholeheartedly but they are not lesbian acts.

A lesbian is a woman who is romantically and sexually attracted to women and not men—there are no other criteria for being a lesbian and it doesn't do us any favours to politicise our sexuality this way and hold it to standards that no other sexuality is held to. Lesbianism is a sexual orientation in its own right. It has nothing to do with men. It is not a strategy for all women to use so they can better resist patriarchy, and heterosexual and bisexual women should not be encouraged to co-opt lesbian women's identities to further their own political agendas. Sooner or later one of these male-attracted women finds some Sensitive Nice Guy and falls in love with him, and then she has one of two choices: she can drop the lesbian label, realising it doesn't describe her, and choose one that is more fitting; or she can hold onto the lesbian label, stubbornly declaring that she has found her "exception" in the face of confused comments from friends and indignant protests from lesbians. This is a thing that happens, by the way.

And lesbians have the right to be mad. Guess what we hear when we come out to straight people? "You can't know for sure you're a lesbian. You might meet the right guy. I know a lesbian who married a man..." Ugh.

Lesbianism is female homosexuality. It is not about politics and it is not about platonic and familial female relationships.

[Aud · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5/5 (1 star for the work itself but added a half of one for the importance of this conversation)
really interesting essay. although there's a lot of praise for this work, i do feel like the criticisms and negatives of this essay need to be addressed. like the other reviews said, this is definitely outdated and there are many, many controversial things that should 100% be talked about when praising this piece and should not be looked away from at all.
rich's underlying tokenizing tone of women of color to prove a point, definite lack of intersectionality, radical feminist terf rhetoric, claiming all women are lesbian in a way, and her assuming the hijab is "oppressive" is extremely frustrating and angering.
it's an expressive piece that addresses gendered oppression to the lesbian identity through a “feminist” point of view and logic that is easy enough to understand and is 100% a needed conversation we need to have in society today, but the negatives definitely outweigh the positives of this piece.
her incredibly binary view of things is again, frustrating because mentioning non-binary and trans lesbians' would add to the nuance of lesbianism for comphet and additionally, our personal experiences with gender as lesbianism does not conform to societally gender norms is a definitive struggle that is important to the lesbian experience. however, i did like how rich describes heterosexuality as an institution.
i do recommend those interested to read this, especially non-terf feminists and sapphics, but not to idealize her writing in any way like many have, but to use this piece as intense criticism for the patriarchy AND radical feminism. the topics that rich addresses are important but her transphobia and ignorant point of view made the piece ultimately too upsetting to enjoy like i saw many others doing. the term compulsory heterosexuality is a term we need to go more in depth with and help others in our community understand, but this is not the piece to do so with.

[Clara · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars bc this is a very important text but is also clearly a bit dated. Which one can tell not only by the content she includes, but by the issues and/or identities she leaves out.

[Polytimi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting reading, although I find some parts relatively narrow-minded- she uses strong arguments to support her views, but sometimes she goes too far, perhaps overwhelmed by her own sexuality. I was a bit suspicious from the beginning (foreword) where shes writes that the essay was written to "encourage heterosexual feminists to examine heterosexuality as a political institution which disempowers women-and to change it". It is not that I disagree with this opinion, but Rich seems to constantly try to find a bridge between lesbians and feminists, which I don't think is always necessary. Just in case I have not understood the text perfectly, feel free to correct me or take my thinking a step further. She has very good points about women treatment within our patriarchal society, the political and economic institutions that debase women in every aspect of their lives to serve male ambitions, there are plenty of frustrating example of female maltreatment and basically I kept highlighting favourite parts throughout the text!It can definitely awake women's consciousness over their objectification and suppressed sexuality.

[anne larouche · Rating 5 out of 5]

J’ai lu contrainte à l’hétérosexualité dans le but de trouver un pendant américain à wittig, mais j’ai été plus qu’agréablement surprise de trouver un recueil puissant, complet, accessible. Pour rich, la contrainte à l’hétérosexualité est à la fois la pensée straight de wittig (elle ne parle pas d’elle, c’est moi qui fait le rapprochement) et l’obligation à l’identification masculine au sens d’épistémologie dominante (concept qu’on retrouve chez nombreuses penseuses, hooks, delphy, dorlin, etc.). les dimensions des contraintes à l’hétérosexualité sont d’ailleurs détaillées dans une mesure très pertinente, révélant avec acuité qu’aujourd’hui encore peu est accompli/sûr, et que beaucoup reste à faire. L’idée du continuum lesbien donne non seulement de l’espoir dans les méthodes de résistance, mais apporte un réconfort par rapport à toutes ces relations/associations entre femmes dont on nous gêne ou empêche tant. D’ailleurs, en tant que femme queer mais blanche, je me questionne souvent sur le meilleur moyen de soutenir les mouvements féministes racisés, souvent déçue de tomber sur des féministes blanches avec fond de white feminism. Or, adrienne rich nous arrive tant avec une profondeur d’analyse dans son féminisme décolonial qu’une proposition de faire qui me donne envie de la prendre en exemple (chose qui rejoint tous les essais du recueil à propos de la nécessité d’une épistémologie féministe, c’est à dire de baser notre lutte en prenant le « bord » décolonial, anticapitaliste, antiraciste, etc). Je nuance du fait qu’elle parle parfois plus qu’elle n’en fait (notamment dans la visée du voile, etc.) qui là sont ses lacunes principales car avons demandé l’avis des concernées d’abord..? Mais les essais ultérieurs démontrent qu’elle croit dans le besoin de replacer le focus féministe pour lutter pour le sud global, contre la colonisation, etc. Enfin, je ne penche que très peu dans la poésie (pour ce qu’il s’agit d’en lire) mais ici rich m’a insufflé une réelle appréciation de cette littérature avec ses essais sur la poésie politique. En vrai, on ressort de cette lecture inspirée, rassurée, puissante : le pouvoir de rich me donne envie de lire plus de son oeuvre. Elle apporte définitivement des nouvelles cordes à mon arc, cela et un nouveau modèle d’inspiration.

[Blanche · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un essai magistral en tous points.
Très touchant, notamment sur les idées du mensonge, du corps et de l'expérience lesbienne mais aussi sur l'idée plus global de communauté féminine.
L'écriture est juste, les énoncés sont clairs et le développement des idées des différents essais compilés dans l'ouvrage est plus que pertinent et limpide.
Je recommande vivement la lecture !

[tomás?! · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read this back in 2020 and I thought it was a great read. You can tell from my rating I clearly still do. I can see a bit clearer now why some people found it to be outdated and problematic.

I was wondering if rereading would make me understand some of her points, in particular that of the lesbian continuum. I still don't. I believe it draws such a thin line on womanhood that anything unrelated to men connects to lesbianism, which is not ideal and, honestly, seems almost insulting.

(I am aware lesbianism does not immediately equate to womanhood and that it could be limiting to define it as such. I am basing it entirely on the arguments exposed by Rich.)

However, this essay shows how Rich was so hungry and desperate for representation the lesbian community was deprived of. Therefore, the lesbian continuum acts as a call for help, to be seen. She wants representation so anything will do.

Despite some issues, Rich knows how to elaborate the topic she so rightfully defends. Her words are clear, firm and thought-provoking, hency why compulsory heterosexuality became a well-known topic which has shed some light into a lot of lesbians' lives. Short, easy to read and a great introduction to lesbian theory. Definitely recommend!

[Lena O'Hanlon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an astoundingly comprehensive assessment of lesbian and feminist history which has aged exceptionally. Rich’s paper should be recognised as an imperative read in this age, as the principle of compulsive heterosexuality still remains heightened today by capital and patriarchy, for so often they are the same. Feminist history has so regularly in the past erased lesbians and their philosophies, so dangerously assumed heterosexuality as a natural element of some nebulous, supposed ‘law’ of nature, often left unexamined as queerness and it’s contributions to discussions are ignored. Adrienne Rich succinctly provides here, putting forward what I deem should be the bedrock of queer feminism. Even if you are cisgender and heterosexual, be inspired to reject what unexamined imperatives we have hitherto left unscrutinised and understand them as well as your relationship with them in unflinching truth with Rich’s philosophy, ‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence’ is a short but absolutely essential essay to give your time to if you have not already.

[Sol Medina]

the evils of compulsory heterosexuality and the blessings of lesbian existence opened my eyes to a world of masculine violence and feminine sisterhood and resistence that i didn't really understand in all its depth before. this book made me understand what being a lesbian means to me, both personally and politically; but mainly, it made me understand that there's no way i could pull the personal away from the political, neither the other way around.

a must-read. a manifesto.

[maría · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5 ⭐️

unha achega interesantísima!!! encantoume (unha pena que non poida poñerme así de radical e criticona no tfg polo ben da miña nota)

[Bonnie 𐙚₊˚⊹♡ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Adrienne Rich’s feminist essay proposes the idea that compulsory heteronormativity is a patriarchal institution, much like that of marriage. Its intention is to keep women subdued. Subliminally and overtly, women are taught that to want men and to need them is normal. To accept their abuses and advances and harassments.

The essay itself was thought provoking, although I disagreed with Rich’s use of the word “lesbian” as a blanket term for all close female relationships. I also did not appreciate the sexual undertones in her brief description of breastfeeding (this is the second feminist essay I’ve read which has done this. Why?). It also stood out to me that the intersectionality of identity is given very little attention.

Overall, I felt that the essay itself was very outdated. I understand that it was published in 1980. Regardless, I found myself disappointed by its contents. Rich makes interesting assertions, and I don’t disagree with her entirely, but I think her arguments are greatly weakened by the lack of inclusivity and the watering down of the word “lesbian.” Besides, I don’t think that heterosexuality is merely a patriarchal concept in itself but the way that it is defined and expected within our society.

[Manar M]

this has nothing on the am i a lesbian masterdoc sorry adrianne

[Catalina Victoria · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente reflexión y crítica en torno al régimen de la heterosexualidad. Muy recomendado para mujeres (heterosexuales, bisexuales, y lesbianas) adentrándose al tema y al feminismo radical en general/Excellent book and review about the heterosexual regime. Totally recommended for women (straight, bisexual, and lesbians) delving into this topic and radical feminism in general.

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seminal text that is very short and that I think everyone should read. Lots of thoughts to parse through. S/o to Elly for introducing me to this term <333 Rich is brilliant and her analysis from 45 years ago rings blindingly true to this day.

[Mina M · Rating 4 out of 5]

For lack of better words, holy shit.
But after some consideration still not giving it five stars, see notes.

I said I was gonna read more theory, so I did. Comp het is the latest buzzword that's thrown around a lot and so I wanted to go back to its roots to understand the term better (for the record, this text is not the first that mentions the term, however as far as I'm concerned it is the first work that is more in-depth). Honestly everyone should read this (though of course not uncritically, this was written in the 80s after all). Anyway, so glad I picked this up!

...it becomes an inescapable question whether the issue we have to address as feminists is, not simple "gender inequality," nor the domination of culture by males, nor mere "taboos against homosexuality," but the enforcement of heterosexuality for women as a means of assuring male right of physical, economical, and emotional access."

NB: the author was unfortunately a terf, so keep that in mind (I'm assuming it is more prevalent in other pieces of her work though. This text is fairly black and white, but I would probably still not have known she was anti-trans without being informed about it). Additionally, some takes were just a little too Freudian I think (the female Oedipus complex thing...uh...) but I haven't read nearly enough to criticize that in a productive way. I also think she should have elaborated on bisexuality.

[Azra Kasırga · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one I read for my Gender Studies: Feminist Thought class. I'm choosing to stay silent on this platform about heteropatriarchy -at least for this now- and I will just direct my thoughts onto my final paper.
Just want to note here that no matter what, despite all the ostracisation, fetishization, colonialism of the female body and all sorts of abuse, unpaid labour, -I mean I can keep going but the list wouldn't fit here- I can proudly say that I am so glad I was born a woman. And I am proud that I love women as a woman. Loving a man was like having a constant battle within myself; loving a woman is rebelling against the society every day. The former was easier, but at least I am finally at peace.

[astrocate · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5
pretty interesting essay, i didn't give 4 full stars because I found some controversial things that need to be called out: the author (from the United States and white) talks about some black, african and in general post-colonial issues in a way that I think may seem racist. They assume that hijab and in general purdah is oppressive, and uses some practices like FGM as a token and as this form of sexism applies to all women, higlighting a lack of intersectionality.

[Dai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Corto, conciso y certero. Esa clase de libro que te enseña a ver el trasfondo de las cosas que tenemos normalizadas. La heterosexualidad obligatoria e invisibilidad del lesbianismo es una prueba de que nunca dejo de aprender sobre feminismo, aún más cuando puedo comprobarlo empíricamente. Sin duda, recomendable!

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gives very interesting insights but is to read wisely (especially compulsory heterosexuality) because of Rich's essentialist tendencies. I wouldn't recommend it to someone who isn't already familiar with feminist theory.

[eve · Rating 4 out of 5]

un peu daté mais efficace, intelligent et argumenté

[(yz) · Rating 3 out of 5]

llegit en hores de treball🤙🏼

[rida. · Rating 2 out of 5]

as an avid reader of feminist literature, most pieces of writing end up staying with me. after reading feminist literature, it's almost as though i start to look at the world from a clearer lens. it impacts me deeply, making it stay with me. however, that rarely occurred when i was reading rich's essay.

though some concepts were interesting to read about, i found a lot of content to be problematic. yes, this essay was written in the 80s, but that's no excuse for the problematic takes in her essay. let's talk about the lack of intersectionality. women of colour were not mentioned in this book unless they were being tokenized. no mentions were made about how the lesbian experience is different between white women and women of colour.

calling arranged marriages and hijabs oppressive is rooted in islamophobia and ethnocentrism. white people, i fear, do not know the difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages. additionally, rich could've easily avoided engaging in islamophobia by talking to literally one muslim. it was that easy. when talking about female genital mutilation (FGM), rich completely ignored the role colonialism played, making it seem as though women of colour are forced to undergo FGM because of cultural norms when that's definitely not the case.

the terf rhetoric in the essay was also not appreciated. this was also an issue that could've easily been avoided had an ounce of research about other marginalized populations been done. i would definitely not recommend this to readers who do not fully recognize or understand the concept of intersectionality. 2/2.5 star read.

[Saachi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The essay is inflammatory and I think sometimes steps over bounds. In declaring that all heterosexuality is a political prison devised by men the essay contributes to the erasure of bi and pansexual women and suggests "pure" realities of womanhood that are transphobic (which I am slightly sure that Adrienne Rich was). A lot of places also felt like a reverse Freud, where women only need female love in the way Freud's conception of manhood centered around the male genitals and that only.

But the connection of political sentiments to our emotionally intimate lives, the prevalence of capitalist and heterosexual ideologies enforced by men explains a lot of the mistaken appreciation for men when a relationship is based instead on mutual admiration and care instead of erotic love. The example a lot of modern thinkers give is, remember when you couldn't tell when you were in love with the artist or the artist's work? I think a lot of women, men, and nonbinary people feel this way, even outside of the political hegemony enforced by Puritanical concepts of gender and power. So, perhaps, I like this discussion the best because it brings us closer to the twisted relationship we have with people and our own intellectual minds.

[Bea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Propuesta del club de lectura para ir adentrándonos en un tema importante y que genera controversia debido, en mi opinión, a ignorancia sobre el tema o sobre la definición del propio concepto de heterosexualidad obligatoria.
Habiendo leído a Sheila Jeffreys recientemente, me parece un tema muy interesante que abordar no sólo de forma teórica.

Me quedo con este trocito:

"la heterosexualidad puede no ser en absoluto una «preferencia» sino algo que ha tenido que ser impuesto, gestionado, organizado, propagado y mantenido a la fuerza, es un paso inmenso a dar si una se considera libre e «innatamente» heterosexual. Sin embargo, no ser capaces de analizar la heterosexualidad como institución es como no ser capaces de admitir que el sistema económico llamado capitalismo o el sistema de castas del racismo son mantenidos por una serie de fuerzas, entre las que se incluyen tanto la violencia física como la falsa conciencia. Para dar el paso de cuestionar la heterosexualidad como «preferencia» u «opción» para las mujeres -y hacer el trabajo intelectual y emocional que viene después- se requerirá una calidad especial de valentía en las feministas heterosexualmente identificadas".

[lornapalmer]

(Залишаю без оцінки, бо есе є в багатьох аспектах застарілим та читалося для ознайомлення)

Адрієнн Річ, поміж своїх інших досягнень, була людиною, яка вперше придумала термін «compulsory heterosexuality» (який до нас через ланцюги неправильних перекладів дійшов як «компульсивна гетеросексуальність», що не зовсім відображає суть. Правильніше було б казати «примусова гетеросексуальність») і написала це есе, в якому змушує задуматися про те, наскільки більше жінок хотіли б провести своє життя з іншими жінками, якби не величезна система, яка з дитинства привчає нас до того, що єдина життєва норма — це стосунки з чоловіками. І, хоч безліч ідей Річ не дуже добре вписуються в сучасні розуміння орієнтації, поняття про примусову гетеросексуальність все ще є розповсюдженим та досі допомагає жінкам із самоусвідомленням.

Треба розуміти, що своє есе Річ написала у трохи інакшому контексті, ніж ми живемо зараз. В той період була доволі розповсюджена така течія як політичне лесбійство, яка говорила, що жінка може «обрати» бути лесбійкою аби зробити певну політичну заяву та уникнути патріархальних стосунків з чоловіками. Відповідно в есе також часто зустрічаються розмови про орієнтацію як про вибір, а про гетеронормативність — як про перешкоду, яка заважає цей вибір зробити. Річ також доволі критична з приводу гетеросексуальності в загальному — складається враження, що на її думку це не може бути задовільною опцією для будь-якої жінки. Сама вона в кінці говорить, що просто не бачить сенсу аналізувати якісь позитивні приклади гетеросексуальних стосунків, бо вони також були сформовані під натиском системних очікувань, і життя в надії, що тобі «пощастить» не дозволяє жінкам критично подивитися на цілу систему.

Щобільше, Річ вводить таке поняття, як «lesbian continuum», яке має покривати всі досвіди, коли жінка обирала іншу жінку, не тільки для романтичних стосунків. В це поняття, на думку Річ, входить і солідарність проти чоловічої тиранії, і пошук будь-якої підтримки в інших жінках. Ця концепція як наче намагається сказати, що будь-яка жінка є «хоча б трохи лесбійкою», що геть не вписується в те, як ми зараз розуміємо орієнтацію. На її думку, вміння жінок формувати будь-які міцні стосунки з жінками та знаходити в жінках свій центр опори є свідоцтвом лесбійства. До речі, в кінці також опублікований лист, який Адрієнн Річ отримала від своїх колег, де вони трохи критикують її концепцію. Вони говорять, що вона прирівняла жіночу дружбу до лесбійства, а секс між чоловіком та жінкою — до зґвалтування. Загалом це і є моя головна проблема з цим есе. Гіршим усе могли зробити тільки посилання до Фройда та слова про те, що на цей лесбійський континуум будь-яка жінка потрапляє ще з моменту, коли матір годує її молоком, і що відповідно до цього сакрального зв’язку, який формується між жінкою та її матір’ю, жінки мали б продовжувати тягнутися до подібного досвіду («подібним досвідом» у цьому випадку є лесбійські стосунки).

Коротко кажучи, есе сповнене тих речей, які ні одна сучасна людина не буде сприймати нормально. Також воно повністю ігнорує існування бісексуальності, яке могло б допомогти більш комплексно подивитися на проблему.

При цьому загальна дискусія, яку підняла Річ, є дуже важливою та цікавою. Примусова гетеросексуальність за її словами впливає на жінок на всіх рівнях — від того, як нас вчать сприймати стосунки й до того, що нам показують в порнографічному контенті. За словами Річ, для того, щоб жінка визнала свій досвід з чоловіками примусовим, неправильним та «не своїм», цей досвід спочатку має вийти за межі того, що ми навчилися сприймати як норму. У всесвіті, де сексуальне бажання жінок загалом не сприймається серйозно та у всесвіті, де секс сприймається як щось, що жінка просто терпить, залишається мало простору для усвідомлення, що воно не мало б так відчуватися. В часи написання есе ситуація була більш трагічною, ніж зараз (а в деяких країнах є ще більш трагічною й досі). Вже зараз ми починаємо жити в контексті, де в більш прогресивних країнах люди з малого віку починають бачити гомосексуальність як потенційну опцію, і набагато частіше визначають себе за межами традиційної норми. Я маю надію, що завдяки цьому відсоток гомосексуальних жінок, які прожили більшість життя з чоловіками, не даючи собі можливості дослідити власні бажання, зменшиться. Річ також права в тому, що досвід гомосексуальності чоловіків та жінок є геть різним та не може бути записаним в одну категорію. Лесбійки мають свою окрему історію, на яку великою мірою впливав патріархат, і вона намагається показати, що цю історію й ці досвіди потрібно розглядати як частину загальної феміністичної дискусії, не зводячи фемінізм до фемінізму білих та гетеросексуальних жінок.

У світі, де з самого дитинства будь-яка приязна взаємодія між хлопцями та дівчатами сприймається як романтична симпатія, жінки куди більш схильні вважати будь-які приємні почуття до чоловіків за закоханість. У світі, який вважає, що повністю задовольнити жінку може тільки чоловік, жінки куди більш схильні вважати будь-який рівень захоплення іншою жінкою за близьку дружбу. Не говорячи вже про всі соціальні труднощі, які несе за собою визнання своєї гомосексуальності. Зараз ми маємо більше свободи, але у патріархальному світі, де певну безпеку для жінки може гарантувати тільки захист чоловіка та спроби максимально вписатися в чоловічий ідеал, лесбійські стосунки як опція не розглядаються.

І все-таки що б не писала Адрієнн Річ, це не є ніяким політичним вибором. Куди важливіше будувати світ, у якому сексуальні бажання жінок вважаються важливими, у якому жінки можуть вільно про них говорити й знаходити у своєму досвіді відмінне та спільне. Я не можу сказати, чи позбудемося ми коли-небудь гетеронормативності. Проте Адрієнн Річ мала рацію, коли писала, що гетеронормативність є прямим наслідком та складником патріархату, який визначає цінність жінок через чоловіків. І я маю надію, що коли-небудь це зміниться.

[autumn ☆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

in terms of examining comp het, this book was thorough and compiled many of my own feelings and thoughts about compulsory heterosexuality and how the mechanics of our society makes it almost a necessity. i wish there were more direct examples of comp het.

-1 ☆ since it seems slightly outdated, which is understandable, however i wish i had researched the author beforehand and her terf-y undertones. trans lesbians exist and could have been mentioned somewhere in here.