Anda di halaman 1dari 15

1

Homosexuality and Gender Dichotomy Renee Dale Gender dichotomy sets the social roles of males and females in opposition to each other. The male role is one of domination and social power, while the female role consists in being passive and domestic. The concept of heterosexuality is reliant upon the dichotomy of sexual roles, stemming from the penetrative act being viewed as an act of male dominance and female submission. Being heterosexual and acting in one of the oppositional gender roles are viewed as mutually inclusive. Homosexuality, with two men or two women entering upon a sexual relationship, opposes the heterosexual formula on these fronts. According to the form found in heterosexuality, the homosexual relationship must also resemble that which is founded upon the predetermined gender roles, in order for these gender roles to be found to be universally true. Homosexuality firstly questions heterosexualitys status as the penultimate sexuality, thereby enabling new ways of thinking about the concept of sexual desire and gender related roles. Because of the gender dichotomy, and the perception of heterosexuality as the social norm, homosexuality is viewed as an aberrance. This inhibits homosexual individuals autonomy and ability to follow their homosexual tendencies when they come up. The social system that would best allow its individuals to choose their sexuality most autonomously would be one without a normal sexuality, and without a dichotomous gender system which implies the existence of such a

sexuality. Rather than viewing sexuality as a matter of choice between genders or gender-roles, sexuality can be viewed as a result of desire. At present the gender dichotomy is regarded as immutable, with the characteristics ascribed to each gender as natural. Deviations beyond or outside of a sex determined gender roles is viewed as a psychiatric abnormality. The DSM-IV, or the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association, defines gender identity disorder according to the social gender stereotypes. One of the symptoms of the disorder is the desire to take part in stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex (Psychiatric News 32). To differ from the dichotomy established within society is to be mentally sick. Within this context it isnt possible for an individual to autonomously choose to differ from their assigned gender role; any difference from a sex-determined role is assumed to be because of psychological or biological problems. Inherent to these gender stereotypes is the traditional heterosexual family unit, composed of a male, the head of the family, and a female, the sexual object for procreative purposes. The heterosexual sex act in the context of the reproductive unit centered on the formation of the next generation; closely associated with this was the status of the man: as the possessor of the penis, and thus the reproductive power, he consequently held the social power. Freud viewed this to be the main obstacle against the acceptance of homosexuality. With men holding the dominant social roles, women were left

as the only possible social sexual object (qtd. in Hocquenghem 106) passive, dominated by men, and with no other place in society besides that of (potential) mother. From the sexual roles was extrapolated the social roles of head of family and mother of the children; even further from this was made the generalized gender roles of dominance and passivity. Something which on the surface means different sex is eventually taken to mean differently behaved. These strict roles leave no elbow room; and consequently the homosexual was assumed to have transgender longings, desiring to take the place of the female in the reproductive act, or the male in the case of female homosexuals. With no definition or qualification of sex outside of a reproductive unit, homosexuality was neither a different sexuality, nor a similar sexuality, but rather a relationship in which reproduction is absent (Hocquenghem 64). With such stringent gender roles in effect, homosexuality was unable to be understood in any other sense than a lack of heterosexuality, of productivity, and of normality. Heterosexuality as such needed no initial causal factor; it was the normal state of human beings to be attracted to the opposite sex. Freud considered the heterosexual sexual system to be a subject-object system. The man is the subject, having his identity in his penis, and the woman is the sexual object. The subject-object relationship necessitated the power differentiations and reproductive objectives not found in homosexuality. Freud notes that this lack of diverse relations is the illuminating crack through which homosexual desire manifests its incapability of being reduced to a definite object-choice (Hocquenghem 102). There was no explanation needed

for heterosexuality other than a nod to reproductive necessity. Reproductive family heterosexuality considers the sexual attraction between man and woman to be self-evident (Hocquenghem 102). Conversely, the disparate homosexuality had to be caused by something, neurological or biological, that could make individuals turn from the straight and narrow path of the reproductive family unit. The objective of heterosexuality was quite clear; but homosexuality was pointless, the antithesis of heterosexual productivity. Sexuality, in the context of the heterosexual relationship, consisted of the penis being put into the vagina until it achieved orgasm, with the resulting conception as the stipulated objective. Without conception, homosexual sexual relations were perceived as pointless. This somehow justified the view that homosexuality is therefore useless in society, as a nonproductive unit, and can therefore be relegated to an anomaly. Sexual contact within a heterosexual context is essentially limited to the accomplishment of the heterosexual goal, i.e., procreation. Homosexuality, with no such goals to accomplish, has open to its use various other erogenous zones previously regarded as non sexual or even wrong to utilize in a sexual manner. With an increase in the number of homosexuals in society, and an increase in social concern about homosexuality in general, the sexual actions of homosexuals came to be contrasted against the acts of heterosexuals. Of these, one of the most controversial for the heterosexual world was anal stimulation. The male homosexual usage of the anus went against heterosexual standards of eroticism. The anus was viewed as a private and contaminated area, since it

was the orifice from which excrement came from. Freud considered the penis as the organ which caused the self-realization of men of their status in society as dominant over women (Hocquenghem 82). Sexual usage of the anus, in the context of both stimulation and anal sex, was challenging to the popular views of sexuality because of the gender roles in place. The anus is common to both men and women, and because of this, the stimulation of it is strongly associated with domination: any social use of the anus creates the risk of a loss of identity (Hocquenghem 87); this identity being the only identity which matters, or the heterosexual males rightful social status as the dominator of women within the penetrative sex act. The male homosexual act of anal sex is similar to the heterosexual act of vaginal sex, and because of this, is strongly and innately associated with domination and passivity that is stereotypically characteristic of the penis and vagina, respectively. The societal fear of and stigma against anal stimulation stemmed from an inherent association with women: anal sex between male homosexuals was an admittance that it was possible for men to be dominated, with penetration as an inherently dominating act. The social males reaction to the concept of anal stimulation have been summed up in the phrase only shame and pain are anal. (Hocquenghem 114). To be penetrated is to be hurt, to be humiliated whereas the one who penetrates is the one who achieves the glory of domination and power. In a homosexual relationship it was incomprehensible that an individual would willingly take what was perceived to be the gender role of the opposite gender, without secretly desiring to be the other gender. How do

people of the same sex practice a sexuality which is defined by the relation between two different sexes? (Hocquenghem 108). It was incomprehensible to the heterosexual mind that penetrative sex could be performed between two equals, because this concept did not fit in with the dichotomous formula in place. By its defined nature heterosexuality consisted of a sexual relationship between a dominant and submissive partner. The gender dichotomy ensured that an equal relationship did not occur; and if it did, those individuals were mentally disturbed, and definitely abnormal. The real difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not merely sexual relations with the same gender or the opposite gender. The existence of homosexuality requires a complete restructuring of how sexual desire is viewed and defined. While heterosexuality requires nothing more than a man and a woman physically able to procreate, homosexuality must be represent something completely different, because procreation isnt involved. The homosexual act is without purpose, and because of this it expresses something some aspect of desire which appears nowhere else (Hocquenghem 36). Homosexuals dont experience the force of nature compelling them to mate, such as the legendary biological clock of women passing their primes, pressing them to get pregnant before they hit menopause. Homosexuals enter into sexual relationships because of pure desire, and because of this, desire can no longer be defined according to the heterosexual prescription. Heterosexuality suppresses forms of desire which arent in line with the goal of creating offspring, and homosexuality challenges this in a

grand way. With a sexual system devoid of a productive goal, the entire concept of a productive goal within sexuality is questionable. The social construct of a man making woman his sexual object is threatened as men make men their sexual objects, and women make women theirs. It is as if society could not bear to see in man what it demands to see in women, as if to dominate women and to repress homosexuality were one and the same thing (Hocquenghem 125). Homosexuality threatens the heterosexual social set up of gender roles, which cannot take leave from the concept of male domination. The acceptance and popularization of homosexuality would threaten the heterosexual domination of women as purely sexual objects for the procuring of offspring. If men could be made the sexual objects, if women could make other women into sexual objects, then it makes little sense that men should be the almighty dominating social animal. To take away the idea that penetration is the only right way to do it, and that penetration is an inherently dominating act, and that the male penetrates the woman, is to take away the socially engendered male role of domination. At the base of heterosexuality is the gender dichotomy, and indeed, it is only within the gender dichotomy that strict heterosexuality makes sense. Without an obvious difference, a clear opposing of genders, there would be no heterosexuality as presently defined. In the all-encompassing shadow of heterosexuality, homosexuals are often viewed as being transgender wannabes, because within this context they must possess many of the opposite sexs characteristics. By twisting a homosexual individuals identity and forcing it to

fit into one of the dichotomous gender roles, some sense may be made of homosexuality from a heterosexual context. With homosexual individuals viewed as having many characteristics of one or the other sex, homosexuality is reduced to an analogy of heterosexuality. Instead of being a relationship between two individuals, loving or sexual, it is viewed as a liaison between two abnormal individuals, unable to fit into the dichotomy that everyone else is so secure in. A butch lesbian comments upon the butch-fem dichotomy, into which a homosexual woman is expected to fit: There was no being versatile It was basically a man-woman relationship you had to play your role (Corvino 227). Homosexuals are forced into roles similar to the heterosexual male-female roles, so that a relationship may resemble a heterosexual relationship. The dichotomy, intuitively based upon gender and sex, becomes more based upon perceived propriety and the nature of the sexes as played out in heterosexual relationships. This set of behaviors is spread throughout society, regardless of sexuality. Working upon this basis, homosexuals can more easily be stated to be perversions of the heterosexual gender-norm; and homosexuality as such merely a fiction, a useful pretend sexuality for the socially inept. The fictiveness of homosexuality is taught to children from a very young age. Young children, particularly boys, when experimenting sexually with other boys, are presented with homosexuality as a non-option: homosexuality is reduced to nonsexuality because real sexuality is the sexuality of identifiable persons (Hocquenghem 134). Young children are told that, what is possibly

and probably a sign of homosexual tendencies within them, is merely a phase. Homosexuality, instead of being a legitimate sexual choice, is merely a youthful error, and the young boys in question will one day find their true sexualities and have sexual relationships with women. To accept homosexual urges is to accept an undesirable gender role; and in boys, to accept the passive gender role, the most undesirable of all. In this way, heterosexuality is presented as the only state of sexuality in existence, and homosexuality as the sexuality of neurotic individuals. Homosexuality directly opposes heterosexuality; it is impossible to have homosexuality without heterosexuality existing previously. Heterosexuality is the natural, correct state of sexual being it came first. Hocquenghem says of a fictional character: he would be a homosexual if it did not imply the existence of heterosexuality. (Hocquenghem 116.) To self-identify as homosexual is to accept the superiority of the giant heterosexuality. Merely admitting that one is a homosexual is to admit that heterosexuality exists and is the normative sexuality, and that one is the abnormal one. If one were autonomously able to choose sexuality, doing so would surely not admit inferiority and acceptance of a social role in one breath. The social system of mainstream sexuality and dimorphous gender roles causes those who differ from the median to identify as different. Gender roles cause characteristics to be expected to be typical, such as male dominance and female passivity those expectations are about the performance of the role

10

(Appiah 66). The gendered roles, particularly of men as dominant and women as passive, are only applicable in the context of heterosexuality. Without the frame of the heterosexual reproductive family, there is absolutely no reason that, for example, women should be passive. Two women in a relationship have no reason to be submissive to each other; its even questionable whether or not two individuals can be mutually submissive. The same applies to two men in a relationship. If there is an argument for gender roles within heterosexuality, homosexuality as an accepted normality tears down that argument. However, the continuation of the gender roles causes homosexual relationships to attempt to resemble heterosexual relationships, in order to gain some social rectitude. Since the artificial roles are based upon heterosexuality, it further undermines the security of homosexuality as legitimate, non-inferior sexuality. To fully accept homosexuality it is necessary to escape from the traditional heterosexual view of the proper use of the genitalia, which naturally involved solely the penis and the vagina. Homosexual sexual relations enabled use of far more physical zones and sensations than those two, as the objectmechanism is sexual desire as opposed to reproduction. Just as the single allowable sex act can no longer be the sole permissible sexual act, individuals must be allowed to escape from the harsh heterosexual dichotomy of gender roles. The sexual acts found within homosexual relationships must be integrated to gain an understanding of what it means to desire. Freud thought that the social creation of a third sex should be avoided at all costs, and as a result, the class of desire found within homosexuality must be conceived to be

11

within every individual: we must regard each individual as possessing an anal erotism, a urethral erotism, an oral erotism, etc... (qtd. in Hocquenghem 103). The brand of desire found within homosexuality, unlike that found in the heterosexual familial structure, encompasses multiple erotisms. Analogously, men should no longer be simplified into a penis, and women into a vagina. With multiple methods of sexual intercourse available to an individual, there should be multiple roles available to choose from. Acceptance of homosexuality and the rejection of the concept of penetrative sex as degrading will lead to the gendered roles of men as dominating and women as passive becoming archaic concepts. Foucault believed that homosexuality exists as it does today because of historical trends, such as confession and discoveries in medicine and psychology. Confession lended to the tendency of individuals to tell people about their sexual lives, and medical advances led to the diagnosing of anything thought to be outside the norm. He says of the state of the 19th century homosexual: Nothing that went into his composition was unaffected by his sexuality. It was everywhere present in him (qtd. in Drazenovich 11). Those who are homosexual are unable to get away from the ruling sexuality, and because of this, their identities are shaped by their sexuality. They have no choice but to define themselves toward or against heterosexuality, and subsequently to choose of one of two gender roles. With a choice between two gender roles and homosexuality or heterosexuality, personal choice is limited. It is questioned if there is a need for there to be any more freedom in sexuality.

12

However, if one must always think in terms of identification with groups, and said groups are limited in number, a possible alternative of a complete lack of grouping would allow for much greater autonomy of action. Instead of worrying about medians and abnormalities, and how they relate to a society or sex, individuals would have the freedom to simply desire, feel, and act, to just be sexual (Drazenovich 15). Individuals are forced to accept and identify as either homosexual or heterosexual (or perhaps both), and accept the gender role which was predetermined by their chromosomes. The amount of choice present in forming an identity in such an atmosphere is relatively small; one is responding to a fact [that comes] from outside the self (Appiah 70). The role expected of an individual because of sex is obviously from outside the self; to a lesser extent, there are roles expected of one in whichever sexuality one identifies with. Foucault suggests a move towards a society which treats homosexuality in a way similar to the ancient Greeks, who thought of sexuality in general as a product of aphrodisia (Drazenovich 13), or desire. Instead of having divergent sexualities, there was only the force of the aphrodisia which involved not only sexual desire but also the mode of relationship between the self, other people and beauty (Drazenovich 14). Instead of focusing on the objects of desire, a more liberating society would allow pure desire to function on its own. The current homo-hetero system focuses on the object of desire as a gender, and that object within its gender role. The ideal would be to see the object of desire not as a gender, or within its social role, but rather as something worthy

13

of desire and viewed to be beautiful. Foucault believes that the best way to resolve the conflict between heterosexuality and homosexuality is a society which will feature bodies and pleasure instead of such familiar and overworked entities as sexuality (qtd. in Drazenovich 11). Ridding society of the gender dichotomy is the only way to accomplish this, as it is inherent to the heterosexual schema. In the context of the gender dichotomy, there will always be domination and submission; one partner must be on top; there is no equality. Without the gender dichotomy, not only would individuals be free to enjoy stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex (Psychiatric News) regardless of sex, but they would be able to enter into sexual relationships without the critical eye of the world asking which one is taking it and which one wears the pants in the relationship. The heterosexual relationship consists of a man who penetrates a woman sexually. Because of what is seen as the dominating nature of the act of penetration, the man is seen as the dominating force, and the woman as the submissive individual. Out of this came the gender roles, and upon the gender roles heterosexuality rests as the only allowable sexuality. Homosexuals are thought to be abnormal, because not only do they differ from the median sexuality, but they also, of necessity, do not follow the gender roles. These two counts of difference go against the autonomous decision to be or act upon homosexual desires. The status of heterosexuality as normal and the deeply held gender roles go against an autonomous choice of homosexuality. Homosexuality lacks a procreative object, and because of this, symbolizes and

14

effects only desire. The most autonomous system for sexuality in the context of identity would be that of desire, as opposed to categorized sexualities. In order to leave the mindset of heterosexuality, the context of gender dichotomy must be left behind. Gender dichotomy is the social mechanism for ensuring that heterosexuality is preserved. Within homosexual relationships, there is no purpose in having an inequality, no reason to expect that the penetrated partner is somehow worth less, because of that fact. The circumstance under which the most autonomy would be achieved would be one without either gender dichotomy or categorized sexualities. As it is now, homosexual is just another word for different. It can mean anything you like, except my fellow man, except my image, except myself if every man is all of man, this black sheep must only be a pebble or must be me (qtd. in Hocquenghem 38). If there were terms to differentiate between homosexuality and heterosexuality, if there were no predetermined roles to place individuals into based upon their sexes, then the ruling concept would be that within all individuals there are desires.

Works Cited Appiah, Anthony. Ethics of Identity. 2005. Princeton University Press.

15

Corvino, John, ed. Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. p. 227. 1997. Rowman & Littlefield. Web. DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria For Gender Identity Disorder. Volume 38 Number 14 Page 32. Psychiatric News July 18, 2003. American Psychiatric Association. Web. Drazenovich, George. A Foucauldian Analysis of Homosexuality. 2010. Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia. Web. Hocquenghem, Guy. Homosexual Desire. 1978. Allison and Busby Limited.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai