Main Post 2.23

Leila Rupp: “Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality”

In Rupp’s “Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality”, she discusses the social constructions of sexual relationships. In today’s society, we consider the “normal” romantic relationship to take place between a man and a woman who both have straight sexual orientations. However, Rupp discusses many societies where, historically, romantic relationships were defined very differently. For example, in an ancient Athenian society, adult male citizens would often have sex with their slaves, young boys, and other social inferiors instead of having sex with women. Rupp discusses this in graphic terms and even quotes an Earl from Restoration England: “missing my whore, I bugger my page” (289). I’m not sure that this quote is necessary, but conveys Rupp’s point that some societies did not consider heterosexuality the only sexual norm. There is also evidence that it was very common in ancient Japan for men to develop relationships with younger boys at a young age. The beginning of the article is all about age difference and homosexuality being the normal sex practice in some societies.

Rupp brings up the idea of female relationships of this nature. She cites a few examples, but reminds us that “a young girl at the breast is reminiscent of motherhood, while a boy enclosing a penis has nothing to do with traditional men’s roles” (291). I think that is self explanatory.

Next, Rupp discusses transgender individuals. She focuses on societies in Tahiti, Brazil, India, and North America where men feel “womanly”, so they engage in genital reconstruction or take hormones to look/feel like a woman. It is important to note that Rupp mentions that women who tried to pass for men in early modern Europe may have been doing so for “occupational or literal mobility”. She then goes on to show some examples of female relationships that would be considered “transgender” today.

One of the big points that Rupp is trying to make is that instead of calling these types of relationships “same-sex”, they should be called “different gender” relations…because gender is a social construct, and the people in homosexual relationships usually have different self-identified genders.

Rupp’s second main question asks how we define same-sex sexuality versus same-sex dominations. Were the same-sex age-difference relationships between men in Ancient Athens or New Guinea truly about sexual desire? Or were they about social domination?

Rupp discusses the difficulty we have determining if relationships between women are just relationships of “affection” or if they are truly romantic/sexual. This is because it has always been hard to define sex between two women. She mentions that some women have “bosom sex”, while others prefer to manually stimulate the clitoris/vagina. Finally, Rupp makes her last point: “I have spent all this time undermining the term ‘same-sex sexuality’ but, in fact, I think that it is the best one we have.”

Adrienne Rich: “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”

Rich’s article entitled called “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” is based on the idea that society’s assumes that all women should be sexually attracted to men. I think it is safe to say that our society 100% makes this assumption, and therefore Rich’s forward is important. Her forward includes a discussion of four books that are written from different political orientations, but are all considered to be feminist texts. Rich argues that all of the texts would have been more powerful if the author had recognized lesbian sexuality as a real thing that exists in society. Additionally, Rich wishes that the authors would have discussed the institution of heterosexuality in terms of the male dominance that heterosexuality promotes.

As a psychology major, I couldn’t believe that one of the books that Rich discusses, entitled Toward a New Psychology of Women, is “written as if lesbians simply do not exist” (14). That is an insult to the discipline of psychology. Psychology is all about understand human behavior, and sexual orientation is highly studied by social psychologists. In contrast to this book that denies the existence of lesbians, Rich notes that Nancy Chodorow’s book “comes close to the edge of an acknowledgement of lesbian existence”.

Rich discusses Kathleen Gough’s essay “The Origin of the Family”, which includes a list of characteristics of male power. Rupp expands on these points and shows how male power forces heterosexuality upon women. This is incredibly hypocritical of men, because a large part of the male population enjoys watching “lesbian porn”, which Rich discusses.

Another important point in Rich’s paper is the MacKinnon study, which illustrates that women in the workplace are taught that sex is power, and this is a terrible cycle. Women will endure sexual harassment in order to keep a job, and they will act heterosexual because women know that lesbians are may be likely to be hired. However, women are also careful not to be too “careful” about displaying their sexuality in the workplace, because if they are not a little sexy they could risk having their sexuality be questioned.

Rich closes her article with a discussion of what she calls the “lesbian existence” and the “lesbian continuum” (36). The lesbian continuum includes women who love each other as friends and mentors, and women who take pleasure in romantic relationships. The recognition of the “lesbian existence” is liberating for all women, according to Rich. Recognizing the lesbian existence requires moving past the women that Rich mainly discussed in her essay and studying different cultures.